![]() |
|
XP is just a number | |
PerlMonks |
Re^7: OO-call bug uncovered & autovivified functions: defined? exists?by Somni (Friar) |
on Oct 29, 2007 at 02:38 UTC ( #647782=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Hm, so it does. The only non-contrived example I can think of is:
I have done it in the past in order to keep the dispatch table visible only to the function using it, but I find the extra indentation rather ugly so I tend to avoid it. I don't know if I'd call it strange and rare, but it certainly isn't unexpected. The need for it is also removed in 5.10, but I mention this only so that someone else won't. Edit: I realize now this has gotten somewhat far afield of the original question. You asked me to substantiate that if you remove auto-vivification by reference then all subroutines would have to be defined before they can be referred to. It's true, they would need only be declared, not defined, before taking a reference.
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|