Re^4: What to test in a new module

Thanks for the clarification. Two other points, which you are probably well aware of but some readers might not be:

return; and return(); are the same, although the brackets do make it more visually distinct and perhaps that's your point.

return; in list context returns the empty list. This means it is effectively the same as return wantarray ? () : undef; unless it is called in void context. Your use of it when not expecting a return value implies void context, though, so perhaps this point is moot.

Comment on Re^4: What to test in a new module Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: What to test in a new module by jdporter (Chancellor) on Jul 10, 2023 at 14:14 UTC
the brackets do make it more visually distinct and perhaps that's your point. That is precisely my point. It isn't obvious that `return;` returns undef, so I don't depend on that. That is, I don't use that construction when that's what I want to do.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: What to test in a new module by choroba (Cardinal) on Jul 11, 2023 at 18:22 UTC
> It isn't obvious that `return;` returns undef It doesn't. It returns undef in a scalar context, but an empty list in a list context. `map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]\|\|0,1}[\\|\|{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^ARGV,3]`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: What to test in a new module by jdporter (Chancellor) on Jul 11, 2023 at 18:43 UTC
Whatever. It returns the same as `return();` The point is that what it returns isn't obvious — at least, not nearly as obvious as `return();` ... so it's worth the extra two characters (imho).	[reply] [d/l] [select]


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks