Re: Re: Is it there, or is it not?? Quirkiness with error handling.

"... please do not call subroutines using an ampersand. Write err3() rather than &err3()."

FYI: this is a special syntax. Calling a subroutine this way from within a subroutine has the effect of passing the (remaining) arguments to the inner sub that were passed to the outer. To wit:

# main
outer( 1, qw( A Set of Args ));

sub outer {
  my $pass = shift;
  &inner if $pass;
}

sub inner {
  print "inner: ", join( ' ', @_ ), "\n";
}
[download]

will print:

A Set of Args
[download]

dmm

If you GIVE a man a fish you feed him for a day
But, TEACH him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

Comment on Re: Re: Is it there, or is it not?? Quirkiness with error handling. Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(tye)Re: Is it there, or is it not?? Quirkiness with error handling. by tye (Sage) on Jul 12, 2002 at 20:47 UTC
Note that you are confusing `&mysub;` and `&mysub();` which are very different. (tye)Re: A question of style goes into these in some detail. As for avoiding & on subroutine calls, that is, to a great extent, a style issue. Frankly, several of the reasons for using & on subroutine calls (avoid collisions with built-ins, stylistically distinguish user subs from built-ins, uniformity of sigils with other common user-defined items) are much more compelling to me than any of the reasons for not using them: "looks like Perl4" (big deal), "overrides prototypes" (don't use prototypes in most cases). So I strongly disagree with Aristotle on that point. - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: (tye)Re: Is it there, or is it not?? Quirkiness with error handling. by dmmiller2k (Chaplain) on Jul 18, 2002 at 19:45 UTC
Whoops! That was a typo! Instead of removing the `()` from `&mysub()`, I did just the opposite and removed the `&`. In *real* code, the compiler usually catches stuff like this ... :) dmm	[reply] [d/l] [select]


Perl: the Markov chain saw
	PerlMonks