"By using a parameter specification, you give Perl the capability to do valuable parameter checking."
First of all, it's called a prototype. Prototypes alter parsing rules. To say they provide parameter checking is bit of a stretch. There are better approaches if you want parameter validation.
The book "Perl for C Programmers" suggests you always define parameters.
Well that's pretty silly since a sub's prototype is ignored when the sub is called as a method. Since most of my subs are methods, it's suggesting I waste my time writing and maintaining prototypes that don't get used.
"Leaving out the parameter specification, an you invite chaos."
If that were true, the world would have ended in chaos a long time ago from all the OOP being done in Perl.
In reply to Re: What's the better Perl style? Define parameters or not?
by ikegami
in thread What's the better Perl style? Define parameters or not?
by pureHeart
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |