Re: 2: Improving the efficiency of this piece of code (&FUNC; vs. FUNC(); vs. &FUNC(); ? )


Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
	PerlMonks

Re: 2: Improving the efficiency of this piece of code (&FUNC; vs. FUNC(); vs. &FUNC(); ? )

by ybiC (Prior)

on Feb 25, 2001 at 08:44 UTC ( [id://60720]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to Re (tilly) 1: Improving the efficiency of this piece of code
in thread Improving the efficiency of this piece of code

I've made a habit of calling functions as &FUNC(); to make them more readily visible.

The following explanations would seem to approve my approach. Are there other factors I should take into account? Reason(s) why I should forego the preceeding "&"? Particular situations, perhaps?

perlman::perlsub tells me:
"& is optional with parentheses" and that "& makes current @_ visible to called subroutine".

perlman::perlvar says:
"within a subroutine the array @_ contains the parameters passed to that subroutine. See the perlsub manpage".
    thanks,
    Don
    striving for Perl Adept
    (it's pronounced "why-bick")

Update: After reading tye's post that Albannach linked below, and re-reading tilly's post above, I *think* I'm OK in continuing to &FUNC().

Comment on Re: 2: Improving the efficiency of this piece of code (&FUNC; vs. FUNC(); vs. &FUNC(); ? )

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: 2: Improving the efficiency of this piece of code (&FUNC; vs. FUNC(); vs. &FUNC(); ? ) by Albannach (Monsignor) on Feb 25, 2001 at 09:00 UTC
Coincidentally I ran across this node today in which tye offers a nice summary of calling options. -- I'd like to be able to assign to an luser	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom

Domain Nodelet^?

www.com | www.net | www.org

Node Status^?

node history
Node Type: note [id://60720]
help

Chatterbox^?

How do I use this? • Last hour • Other CB clients

Other Users^?

Others romping around the Monastery: (1)

chatterbot

As of 2024-04-19 18:11 GMT

Sections^?

Information^?

Find Nodes^?

Leftovers^?

Today I Learned

Voting Booth^?

No recent polls found