Bob, Since this is a list for newbies, can you please be a bit more specific why you are opposed to those things you list. I'm quite fond of using the &foo or &foo(args) calling styles. Is this just a personal preference?
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Showalter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 8:30 AM To: 'Octavian Rasnita'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: subroutine or &subroutine > -----Original Message----- > From: Octavian Rasnita [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: subroutine or &subroutine > > > Hi all, > > I've seen some subroutines are ran without the & sign in front of the > subroutine name, like: > > subroutine_name; > instead of > &subroutine_name; > > Is it the same thing or there is a difference? Janek gave you the difference, and it's fully documented in perldoc perlsub. Note that the first is not allowed under "use strict" unless the sub has been declared or defined above the usage, or imported. Here are my recommendations for new code (others may want to debate these): 1. Always "use strict;" 2. Don't use prototypes. 3. Don't use the &foo or &foo(args) calling styles. 4. To call a sub with no arguments, use an empty set of parens: foo() (Exception: method calls can leave off the parens, e.g: $sth->execute; since there is no ambiguity with a method call). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
