#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;

sub bob {
  map { print "$_$/" } @_;
}

my @thing = qw(tom dick harry);

bob(@thing);

print "============$/";

my @results = bob(@thing);

print "We printed " . (scalar @results) . " items$/";
[download]

antirice    
The first rule of Perl club is - use Perl
The ith rule of Perl club is - follow rule i - 1 for i > 1

but that uses the return from map, although it's hidden.

I don't see why using map in a void context is so wrong. Sometimes it expresses something better, particularly if the order of operation doesn't matter:

map {transform($_)} @elements; # transform() does something inline
[download]

A massive flamewar beneath your chosen depth has not been shown here

Is that more expressive to you than something like this:

trasform $_ foreach @elements;

If so, how?

This first call to bob uses a map in void context whereas the second call does not. The point was to imply the question of whether I should use two different subs to perform the same task having only the difference that one returns a list and the other returns nothing.

bunnyman: [In response to: And why then is map allowed to be called in void context?] There are a lot of things you can do with Perl that you shouldn't do.

Following that logic, I should create two subs. Perl takes the stance of TIMTOWTDI. Why not let the programmer determine what should be used instead of laying down a draconian policy?

dash2, this isn't directed towards you (considering we are basically on the same platform with this one). I'm just saying what I thought was obviously implied by the code.

antirice    
The first rule of Perl club is - use Perl
The ith rule of Perl club is - follow rule i - 1 for i > 1