http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=407222


in reply to Re: To & or not to & ?
in thread To & or not to & ?

Note that, & only passes @_ IF you leave off the parens.

So that, if bar was implemented

sub bar { &foo(); }
then it wouldn't pass anything at all to foo. So, &FUNC should be considered a different way to call than &FUNC(), because only one of them does something different than FUNC()

--
Snazzy tagline here

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: To & or not to & ?
by !1 (Hermit) on Nov 12, 2004 at 00:58 UTC
    because only one of them does something different than FUNC()

    Actually, all of them do something different as shown below:

    > perl -le'@_=2;sub a($$) {shift or 1};print &a' 2 > perl -le'@_=2;sub a($$) {shift or 1};print &a()' 1 > perl -le'@_=2;sub a($$) {shift or 1};print a()' Not enough arguments for main::a at -e line 1, at end of line Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.

    Sorry for the pedantry.

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.