Here's an excerpt about the & from orielly and what the heck does it means:
"...If a subroutine is called using the & form, the argument list is optional. if ommitted, no @_ array is setup for the routine; the @_ array at the time of the call is visible to subroutine instead." So, is there a better or worse? both ways works for me. I just started going back and putting the & onto the sub ;) I don't like it the & but I thought that you need it. Anymore comment is good. -rkl > > Generally the use of the ampersand in subroutine calling is considered a > bad > habit even though it will work for most subs. For one thing, a sub called > with the ampersand ignores any subroutine prototyping. As far as the > parentheses go, I always use them even if there is nothing being passed > because it makes for more legible code. Someone else can probably give > you > a more in-depth explanation of the two. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: explicit vs implicit syntax > > > Is it really bad practice oneway or another with calling sub? > > &doMe; > &doMe(); > doMe; > doMe(); > > Please explain in terms of performance and practice. > > thanks, > -rkl > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
