Re^4: He didnt explicitly pass @

perlvar provides a one-line explanation as to the use/meaning of @_ - perlsub, if the OP is/was sufficiently interested, expands on that [the perlvar entry], so in conclusion, IMO, it does add something: simplistic brevity ;D

A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))

Comment on Re^4: He didnt explicitly pass @_ Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: He didnt explicitly pass @_ by tye (Sage) on Apr 22, 2009 at 02:52 UTC
I suppose that would make sense if the OP had expressed confusion about what @_ is. I saw no such confusion. The confusion was about how @_ gets implicitly passed, which I don't see covered in the least in perlvar. But I don't find a blind link to perlsub particularly enlightening nor even polite. The particular feature being asked about is discussed in perlsub starting at the paragraph that begins "A subroutine may be called using an explicit `&` prefix" (but there appears to be no anchor there so I can't construct a link that jumps particularly close to that part of the document. I concisely summarized much of this in (tye)Re: A question of style as well, which some may find useful for its brevity. - tye	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: He didnt explicitly pass @_
by tye (Sage) on Apr 22, 2009 at 02:52 UTC

I suppose that would make sense if the OP had expressed confusion about what @_ is. I saw no such confusion.

The confusion was about how @_ gets implicitly passed, which I don't see covered in the least in perlvar. But I don't find a blind link to perlsub particularly enlightening nor even polite.

The particular feature being asked about is discussed in perlsub starting at the paragraph that begins "A subroutine may be called using an explicit & prefix" (but there appears to be no anchor there so I can't construct a link that jumps particularly close to that part of the document.

I concisely summarized much of this in (tye)Re: A question of style as well, which some may find useful for its brevity.

- tye

[reply]
[d/l]