The following explanations would seem to approve my approach. Are there other factors I should take into account? Reason(s) why I should forego the preceeding "&"? Particular situations, perhaps?
perlman::perlsub tells me:
"& is optional with parentheses" and that "& makes current @_ visible to called subroutine".
perlman::perlvar says:
"within a subroutine the array @_ contains the parameters passed to that subroutine. See the perlsub manpage".
thanks,
Don
striving for Perl Adept
(it's pronounced "why-bick")
Update: After reading tye's post that Albannach linked below, and re-reading tilly's post above, I *think* I'm OK in continuing to &FUNC().
In reply to Re: 2: Improving the efficiency of this piece of code (&FUNC; vs. FUNC(); vs. &FUNC(); ? )
by ybiC
in thread Improving the efficiency of this piece of code
by bladx
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |