Re^2: passing variables between subroutines

It's best to avoid passing non-scalars around that way. I think you're generally better served by passing the references


my @test = (1,2);
my @test2 = (3,4);
foo(\@test,\@test2);

sub foo
{
  my ($array,$array2) = @_;

  print $_ ."\n" for(@{$array});
  print $_ ."\n" for(@{$array2});
}
[download]

Grygonos

Comment on Re^2: passing variables between subroutines Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: passing variables between subroutines by revdiablo (Prior) on Jan 16, 2006 at 18:57 UTC
It's best to avoid passing non-scalars around that way I have to say I disagree with that as stated. Certainly, there are many cases where passing a reference is preferable, but it depends on the situation. My default is to pass a simple list and switch to passing references when there's a clear need. I'd even go so far as to say it's best to err on the side of not making references when they're not needed.	[reply]
Re^4: passing variables between subroutines by Grygonos (Chaplain) on Jan 17, 2006 at 19:14 UTC
So, can you give me an example of when it would not be a good idea to pass a reference to a non-scalar? I'm asking in earnest. I truly want to know. Grygonos	[reply]
Re^3: passing variables between subroutines by blazar (Canon) on Jan 17, 2006 at 10:45 UTC
It's best to avoid passing non-scalars around that way. I think you're generally better served by passing the references First of all the person you're replying to already pointed out that possibility in his post. Said this, I beg to differ with your claim and to stress that it is actually a possibility, albeit one that -as he also pointed out- turns into a necessity under certain circumstances. But generally speaking there are situations in which passing a reference is preferrable and others in which it is preferrable not to. However, stating a claim like that may easily turn into cargo culting the use of referencing and dereferencing all the time, which has already been observed around.	[reply]