Re: Ampersands and sub speed

This is an archived low-energy page for bots and other anonmyous visitors. Please sign up if you are a human and want to interact.

I think the reason is because calling a function with & preserves the existing @_, so perl doesn't have to mess with the argument stack. In other words, &function; is a kind-of fancy goto.

Comment on Re: Ampersands and sub speed Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Ampersands and sub speed by diotalevi (Canon) on Oct 14, 2005 at 17:43 UTC
No... goto() doesn't return to the next statement. This is a fancy way of saying function( @_ ).	[reply]
Re^3: Ampersands and sub speed by ambrus (Abbot) on Oct 15, 2005 at 08:39 UTC
Closer, but they're still not the same. This code works, `sub f { &g; print @_; } sub g { $_[0] .= "o, w"; push @_, "orld\n"; } +f($x = "hell");` [download] but if you change it like this, it breaks: `sub f { g(@_); print @_; } sub g { $_[0] .= "o, w"; push @_, "orld\n"; + } f($x = "hell");` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Ampersands and sub speed by diotalevi (Canon) on Oct 15, 2005 at 13:43 UTC
Oh ok. That's even more evil than I would have normally thought. So &do_nothing; is like @_=do_nothing(@_) except that it doesn't make copies like would happen in that snippet.	[reply]

• hippo

‥ epoptai's answer Re: how do I set a cookie and redirect was blessed by hippo!

• erzuuli

‥ Anonymous Monks are no longer allowed to use Super Search, due to an excessive use of this resource by robots.


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks