See system. It is different from do. Choose the one you need.

Using do to call one script from inside another is considered not very elegant. Anyway.

#!/usr/bin/perl

print "We're in script1 now\n";

@ARGV = ("super", "duper");
do('script2');

print "Back in script1\n";
[download]

#!/usr/bin/perl

print "\tNow we're in script2\n";

my ($arg1, $arg2) = @ARGV;

print "\t- arg1: $arg1\n";
print "\t- arg2: $arg2\n";
print "\tscript2 ends\n";
[download]

So, one way to do it is to use @ARGV, the array that contains the list of "command line" arguments.

Add a (scope-limiting) block and local to that and @ARGV won't be damaged in script 1:

# in script 1
{
    local @ARGV=(...);
    do('script2');
}
[download]

But this is just an awful kludge.

tel2, move (most of) the code of script 2 into a module. use that module in script 2 to get the existing behaviour. use that module also in script 1 to get the functions you need.

Alexander

--
Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)

A sometimes used technique is to use caller to distinguish between command line invocation as a script and use as a module:

package DualUseScript;

...

return 1 if caller;

# script "main" code
[download]

True laziness is hard work

Thanks Corion,

I have used system() and `` before, but I think they start another process, is that right?

As a result, would 'do' be more efficient, performance wise?  It doesn't start another process, does it?

do does not start a new process. But not starting a second process has implications too. All global variables and modifications that script2 makes will be visible from within script1, which may lead to interesting and hard to debug problems.