Re^4: What's so bad about &function(...)?

You're half right, but you did miss something that jdporter missed, too.

@{\@foo} is, as far as I know, a truly useless elaboration of @foo.

The anonymous copy provided by @{[@foo]} is sometimes useful when you want to preserve @foo's contents. Example:

my @mutant_foo = map { mutator($_) } @{[@foo]};
[download]

It helps with for loops, too. That kind of situation comes up surprisingly often and the copy is an effective and unobtrusive solution.

After Compline,
Zaxo

Comment on Re^4: What's so bad about &function(...)? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: What's so bad about &function(...)? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 08, 2005 at 10:21 UTC
`@{[...]}` also has the interesting side effect that it lets you interpolate a list inside of a quoted string. Which can be useful in some circumstances, like inside of a here doc. This actually applies to ${\(expression)} but the latter is a little less useful IMO. --- $world=~s/war/peace/g	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: What's so bad about &function(...)? by jdporter (Paladin) on Dec 20, 2005 at 13:07 UTC
I didn't miss anything. You seem to have missed my entire point, which was that the ampersand on a sub call is as useless an elaboration as the above array thing. (Of course, it's not really entirely as useless; it's only useless if you avoid coding in a way that exploits the ampersand's wierdness. In general, I avoid such coding, and claim it is a "best practice".) We're building the house of the future together.	[reply]
Re^5: What's so bad about &function(...)? by Anonymous Monk on Dec 08, 2005 at 16:55 UTC
Hmmm... are there other benefits? I never use mutator functions, nor the "alter in place" bindings of for loops. I also don't like to interpolate non-constant expressions into constant strings, like here docs or string interpolations... If I really need a copy of @foo, I'll label the copy with a proper variable name, do a normal assignment, and be done with it. No trickyness required! :-)	[reply]