Re^3: What's so bad about &function(...)?

Yes, but not everyone programs in a vacuum. Sooner or later they'll start using code which does have prototypes. Imagine, for example, that they start using Test::More. Those functions all have prototypes and using the leading ampersand is sure to bring them woe. Imagine, for example, typing "is" instead of "ok":

&is(some_func(3,4));

The prototype is now disabled so they don't get the compile-time failure telling them that the test function has been called incorrectly. If you're new to testing or that's buried in bunch of other tests, it can be quite difficult to figure out.

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.

Comment on Re^3: What's so bad about &function(...)? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: What's so bad about &function(...)? by merlyn (Sage) on Dec 07, 2005 at 19:47 UTC
Sooner or later they'll start using code which does have prototypes. Not if I can help it. Unless it's a specialized function that is trying to imitate a built-in, prototypes are forbidden in the code that I control. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.	[reply]
Re^4: What's so bad about &function(...)? by sauoq (Abbot) on Dec 07, 2005 at 23:13 UTC
Okay... so... uh... why the heck does `Test::More` use prototypes anyway? -sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: What's so bad about &function(...)? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Dec 08, 2005 at 07:15 UTC
To catch bad tests by being very specific about functions such as `is()` and `like()` taking two, optionally three, arguments.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: What's so bad about &function(...)? by Ovid (Cardinal) on Dec 07, 2005 at 23:42 UTC
Didn't write it. You'll have to ask the authors. However, I don't mind it. More than once it's caught me writing a bad test and I can't recall any time I've been bitten by it. Cheers, Ovid New address of my CGI Course.	[reply]
Re^4: What's so bad about &function(...)? by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Dec 08, 2005 at 17:23 UTC
OTOH, if they write something like: `$a[0] = some_func(2, 3); $a[1] = 17; # Expected outcome. &is(@a);` [download] their code runs fine, and it isn't getting generating errors about a mismatch of the number of arguments. I'd say that '&' disables mysterious side-effects. `Perl --((8:>*`	[reply] [d/l]


"be consistent"
	PerlMonks