in reply to Re: Behavior of compile-time constants?
in thread Behavior of compile-time constants?

i dislike the syntax... i don't think => looks like assignment. also, it creates a sub with an empty prototype behind the scenes, so why introduce the overhead for a syntax i don't agree with? i don't see what it gets me.

the use of subroutines with empty prototypes as inlinable is well documented in perlsub, and i expect anyone maintaining my code is familiar with this doc.

~Particle *accelerates*

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Behavior of compile-time constants?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jun 14, 2002 at 19:59 UTC
    I wouldn't worry about the overhead of 70 lines of code and one function call per constant, unless you're writing a very very small program. If the manpage syntax is really a problem, why not use a skinny comma? 
    use constant 'FOO', 2;

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom