Wow just tested that for (@array) do something. I didn't think that would work.
So there is no difference as far as the compiler is concerned with for and foreach? Why bother having both then? Paul Kraus ----------------------- PEL Supply Company Network Administrator > -----Original Message----- > From: Randal L. Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Use of FOR statement > > >>>>> "Dan" == Dan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Dan> On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 20:39, Paul Harwood wrote: > >> I am reading through a book on Objects and References and I don't > >> understand this statement: > >> > >> $sum += $_ for split //; > > Dan> FWIW, for is synonymous with foreach. > > Syntactically, "for" can always be swappped with "foreach". > However, there are definitely two different styles of loops. > > Traditionally, the "for" loop is the "C-style for loop", with an > initializer, test, and iterator expression trio. And "foreach" loop > is the "csh-style foreach loop", with a single scalar being walked > through a list of values. > > But in Perl, you can spell either of these loops "for" or "foreach". > Most Perl hackers tend to optimize for the shorter word when possible, > although in Learning Perl, we were careful to always use the "proper" > word. > > print "Just another Perl (book) hacker," > > -- > Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 > 0095 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> > Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. > See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl > training! > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
