(...) if you can't explain precisely why you are using ampersands in your subroutine calls then leave them off (...)
Because ampersands make it clear to everyone that you know you're using a user-defined function rather than a builtin, and when used with parens don't do anything out of the ordinary (viz. (tye)Re: A question of style)?
I use ampersands everywhere I call user functions. It fits in nicely with the Perlish idea of "every symbol that isn't part of the language has a glyph" --- actually, now that I type that, I'm not certain that it's true, but it's mostly true so I stand by my coding style. Anyways, as tye points out, ampersands and parens Is Your Friend.
--
F
o
x
t
r
o
t
U
n
i
f
o
r
m
Found a typo in this node? /msg me
% man 3 strfry
In reply to Re^2: Closures versus Currying
by FoxtrotUniform
in thread Closures versus Currying
by pernod
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |