Re^3: lexical sub vs subroutine reference

[haj]

That article uses strong words like "almost irredeemably broken", "incredibly bad idea", which I consider outright wrong.

The issues with our sub speak { ... } are rather obvious. Technically our makes "lexical" aliases, but I have never seen a use case to use our together with sub.

A different thing is my sub speak { ... }. This is what I would call a named lexical subroutine, and I use them occasionally. They work for sort since 5.22, which was released nine years ago, so shortly after brian d foy wrote his rant. And they are no longer experimental, they just work.

While it is correct that you can achieve the same goals with a code reference to an anonymous subroutine, I prefer my sub. It looks "nicer" to me, and I am not distracted by looking whether the code reference is passed to other routines in other packages.