> > There is only one reason to use prototypes and that's for nifty and > > nice looking functions that don't require parenthesis > > You forgot to add "IMHO", because without it this clame is false.
Apologies. Of course, this is all IMHO. :) > I always use prototypes for the "look and immediately have an idea about > the function arguments" reason. IMHO seeing ($$$;$$) in the function > definition rather than just a function name makes the code a lot more > readable. And of course, if you have a good use for (&...) or (\$...), > then why not? :) Well, I don't need to repeat what I already said once > to support function prototypes: > > http://perl.org.il/pipermail/perl/2003-September/002997.html I _personally_ (this time emphasized) have no prospect in your needs of prototypes (which are quite valid on their own) because I feel my functions are more dynamic towards my needs without limiting the number of parameters and the number of them never indicates to me what am I writing. That's what I have documentation (POD, hopefully) for. Also, I don't use try {} catch type of coding - but I can see how prototypes can be useful to some coders. _______________________________________________ Perl mailing list [email protected] http://perl.org.il/mailman/listinfo/perl
