Re^2: Constant code

The simple answer here is to call sub1() and sub2() with no arguments, use sub1(), etc. Don't use a bare word sub name for a normal user defined sub/function.

And yet, we encourage this all the time in OO paradigms, where we have a member function foo to get the value of 'foo': $obj->foo instead of $obj->foo(), ostensibly because it is a 'value' and the fact that foo is a function is just an implemention detail.

Fooey, I say: if you end up creating a stack entry, use parens. That's just my curmudgeonly USD 0.02.

Comment on Re^2: Constant code Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Constant code by Anonymous Monk on Jan 20, 2017 at 22:15 UTC
I have seen parentheses-less method calls outside of getting only a (variable) value, namely in cases where no parameters are being passed. (I don't have any examples handy right now.)	[reply]
Re^3: Constant code by mpersico (Monk) on Jan 20, 2017 at 21:02 UTC
Sorry, that ^ was me.	[reply]
Re^4: Constant code by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jan 20, 2017 at 23:04 UTC
I admit this is a bit of a syntactic nit, but in the `$object_reference->method` and `ClassName->method` OO cases, doesn't the `->` operator as unambiguously indicate function invocation (both to compiler and to programmer) as the parentheses in the `func()` case? I.e., always writing `$obj->method` without any parentheses is the same as always writing `func()` with its empty parentheses. (Although I certainly agree that `$obj->method()` is perfectly valid.) Give a man a fish: `<%-{-{-{-<`	[reply] [d/l] [select]