Re^3: Why this simple code doesn't work?

in reply to Re^2: Why this simple code doesn't work?
in thread Why this simple code doesn't work?

I totally agree that when following my advice the script will break. And for good reasons, since there is no good reason why you want to "re-cycle" a built-in keyword and then you can only make your bad choice of a sub-routine name work by using a construct that has an unwanted (and I am quite sure, unknown to the OP) side-effect.

I think my "standard response" to using prototypes and the calling of subs with "&" is correct. Someone adds a wrong prototype to the sub-definition (I repeat, probably blissfully unaware of what he did) and then you need to set aside the prototype to make it work. Please, explain to me the merit of this kind of programming.

In Perl 4 you had to prepend "&" to the sub-name to call it. In Perl 5 the meaning of "&" has totally changed.

And I challenge you to proof that adding "&" to all your sub-calls is not silly. Some subs that work like built-ins need the prototyping to work.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

My blog: Imperial Deltronics

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom