Re: passing reference to subroutine

You can achieve your goal thus:

sub undefRef{ 
    my $ref = shift; 
    undef @{ $ref };
}
[download]

But why you would do undefRef( \@a ); rather than undef @a; I cannot see.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re: passing reference to subroutine Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: passing reference to subroutine by asthaonard (Acolyte) on Oct 28, 2011 at 09:17 UTC
it was just an example :) what I'm trying to do is modification of passed in array thanks for help	[reply]
Re^3: passing reference to subroutine by wfsp (Abbot) on Oct 28, 2011 at 11:33 UTC
modification of passed in array You may have good reasons to do that but when I'm faced with similar situations I wonder if returning a new version of the array might be better/safer. #! /usr/perl/bin use warnings; use strict; use Data::Dumper; sub process_array_ref { my $initial_array_ref = shift; my @processed_array; for my $element (@{$initial_array_ref}){ # do something with element # validate, normalise, error checking, # convert to metric, skip, whatever push @processed_array, sprintf(qq{processed: %s}, $element); } return \@processed_array; } my $initial_array_ref = ['a','b','c','d','e']; my $processed_array_ref = process_array_ref($initial_array_ref); print Dumper($processed_array_ref); [download] I often find that debugging/maintainance is easier with this approach. YMMV.	[reply] [d/l]