All this is in the same paragraph of oreilly Programming perl page 100 - pub in 1991. I guess it is kinda old. Anyway, it actually says "...more efficient..."
But I'm still sticking with showarg(); style too. -rkl >> But Orielly says showargs() is slower than showargs > > That's a good point, and something I didn't know. > > ...I'm not sure if it will make me change my ways though. > > Do you know where you read that? I'm not sure why it would be slower, I > would think that this would be optimized when the code is compiled to be > the > same speed. > > Rob > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 6:15 PM > To: Hanson, Rob > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: explicit vs implicit syntax > > > I agree it looks like the best standardized candidate for use. > But Orielly says showargs() is slower than showargs when not passing > arguments. It's just a minor point but its something I read. > > In any case, I'm used to the showarg() style. > > thanks, > -rkl > >>> showargs(); >> >> I like this one. It's the "usual" way to program. In most languages >> the >> parens are required, so it's just easier to stick with one habit. > > >> My preference... >> >>> &showargs(); >> >> Ick. I use this one when it is required (references and overriding >> prototypes), otherwise it isn't what I mean. If I mean to just execute >> the >> method, then I don't use it. >> >>> showargs; >> >> Yuk. It saves a few keystrokes, but I tend to avoid it. >> >>> showargs(); >> >> I like this one. It's the "usual" way to program. In most languages >> the >> parens are required, so it's just easier to stick with one habit. >> >> Rob >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 5:43 PM >> To: Thomas Bätzler >> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Tim Johnson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: explicit vs implicit syntax >> >> >> Thanks I understand what you're saying. >> >> If I could ask, which one of these would you use? >> >>> &showargs; #NOT this is the tricky >> >>> &showargs(); >>> showargs; >>> showargs(); >> >> thanks, >> -rkl >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: >>>> 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." >>> >>> If in doubt, run a test ;-) >>> >>> #!/usr/bin/perl -w >>> >>> use strict; >>> >>> sub showargs { >>> print "arguments are: " . join(', ', @_) . "\n"; >>> } >>> >>> sub test { >>> print "Arguments for test() are: " . join(', ', @_) . "\n"; >>> print "Calling &showargs - "; >>> &showargs; >>> print "Calling &showargs() - "; >>> &showargs(); >>> print "Calling showargs - "; >>> showargs; >>> print "Calling showargs() - "; >>> showargs(); >>> } >>> >>> test qw(foo baz bar); >>> __END__ >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> See for yourself - there's only one use for the ampersand, >>> and it's obscure. My advice would be to avoid using it even >>> in the one situation where it would make sense - when passing >>> @_ as an argument to your function. Sure, it is idiomatic Perl >>> at its best, but it also makes a program harder to read and >>> understand. >>> >>> In other words - save it for Perl Golf ;-) >>> >>> HTH, >>> Thomas >>> >>> PS: Perl Golf - writing code with as little (key-)strokes as >>> possible. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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]
