Constants created by use constant are actually functions, or at least act like them.

The parens aren't needed in the code you gave, but they don't harm anything either.

>perl -MO=Concise -e"use constant BUFFER => 20; if (BUFFER() != 20) {}
+"
3  <@> leave[1 ref] vKP/REFC ->(end)
1     <0> enter ->2
2     <;> nextstate(main 72 -e:1) v ->3
-     <0> ex-const v/4 ->3
-e syntax OK

>perl -MO=Concise -e"use constant BUFFER => 20; if (BUFFER != 20) {}"
3  <@> leave[1 ref] vKP/REFC ->(end)
1     <0> enter ->2
2     <;> nextstate(main 72 -e:1) v ->3
-     <0> ex-const v/4 ->3
-e syntax OK
[download]

They do help in other circumstances, though. If a bareword is expected, then the constant will be treated as a bareword instead of as a constant. EXPR => might be the only problem.

>perl -le"use constant FOO => 'abc'; print %{{ FOO => 'def' }};"
FOOdef

>perl -le"use constant FOO => 'abc'; print %{{ FOO() => 'def' }};"
abcdef
[download]

Update: Interestingly, neither $hash{EXPR} and sub(*)->{EXPR} treat the constant as a bareword. EXPR => might be the only case where it's an issue.

Ah, but try this with The Real Comma ...

perl -l -e 'use constant FOO => "abc"; print %{{ FOO , "def" }}'
[download]

I happened on it earlier at work where everything was as expected -- in hash (reference) assignment -- when constants were used with "," but displayed ugly head when used with "=>". (Yes, calling the constant "variable" as a sub that it really is worked around the problem.)

I had managed to put up with constants not properly interpolating in strings. Not any more.

Normal comma doesn't expect a bareword, thus no problem.