Re^3: Return a Reference or Array?

And I thought prototype checking was undesirable :-)

I just added the "&" for clarity - and I sometimes use it myself in some one-off hacks where I call a sub before I define it (just to keep the parser happy).

Apart from prototype checking what else are the differences between

&foo(@args);
[download]

and

foo(@args);
[download]

Comment on Re^3: Return a Reference or Array? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Return a Reference or Array? by CountZero (Bishop) on Apr 06, 2009 at 22:41 UTC
From the docs (`perldoc perlsub`): If a subroutine is called using the & form, the argument list is optional, and if omitted, no `@_` array is set up for the subroutine: the `@_` array at the time of the call is visible to subroutine instead. This is an efficiency mechanism that new users may wish to avoid. CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: Return a Reference or Array? by morgon (Priest) on Apr 06, 2009 at 22:48 UTC
Well ok - I knew that. In our example we actually do supply an argument list to both calls, yet moritz above mentioned that there were still differences (e.g. prototype checking). So my question was: Are there any more (and if so which) differences between calling &foo(@args) and foo(@args) (assuming @args to non-empty).	[reply]
Re^6: Return a Reference or Array? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Apr 07, 2009 at 00:01 UTC
Are there any more (and if so which) differences between calling &foo(@args) and foo(@args) (assuming @args to non-empty). Only one: `&foo(@args)` has one useless character.	[reply] [d/l]