Re^2: To & or not to & ?

Note that, & only passes @_ IF you leave off the parens.

So that, if bar was implemented

sub bar { &foo(); }
[download]

then it wouldn't pass anything at all to foo. So, &FUNC should be considered a different way to call than &FUNC(), because only one of them does something different than FUNC()

--
Snazzy tagline here

Comment on Re^2: To & or not to & ? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: To & or not to & ? by !1 (Hermit) on Nov 12, 2004 at 00:58 UTC
because only one of them does something different than FUNC() Actually, all of them do something different as shown below: `> perl -le'@_=2;sub a($$) {shift or 1};print &a' 2 > perl -le'@_=2;sub a($$) {shift or 1};print &a()' 1 > perl -le'@_=2;sub a($$) {shift or 1};print a()' Not enough arguments for main::a at -e line 1, at end of line Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.` [download] Sorry for the pedantry.	[reply] [d/l]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.