Well, if you mean why not use things from @_ directly: items in @_ are aliases to the things passed in; if you're not careful you can unintentionally modify something of your caller's.
my $foo = "bar"; sub bad_example { $_[0] =~ s/a/oo/; $_[0] } print "\$foo: $foo\n"; print "bad_example returns: ", bad_example( $foo ), "\n"; print "uh oh, \$foo: $foo\n";
Now if you just mean why not always use the my( $a, $b, $c ) = @_; form vice shift: there's times when you want to pull off some items and then do something list-y with the remaining contents of @_. Best example off the top of my head would be something that builds a hash from key/value pairs like:
sub take_one_and_hash { my $one = shift; my %hash = @_; ## frobulate $one based on %hash . . . }
Unless you pull that first argument off with shift you'd have to do something like @_[1..$#_] which just looks crufty.
In reply to Re: shift vs @_
by Fletch
in thread shift vs @_
by Zadeh
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |