> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:40 PM
> To: Sterin, Ilya; 'raptor '; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: array/hash manipulation [was :what's with 'with'?]
>
>
> "Sterin, Ilya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmmm. Didn't think about that. That would be a nice way, that
> way you can
> > manipulate it's behaviour depending with how many aliases you provide.
> >
> > for my $el1, $el2 ( (@foo, @bar) ) {
> > print "$el\n"
> > }
> >
> > $el1 and $el2 would of course be aliases, right?
> >
> I don't think that this special purpose notation is necessary. With the
> improved 'want' proposed by Damian, the following should be easy
> to achieve:
>
> @a = (1,2,3,4);
> for ($b,$c) (@a) { print "$b $c"}
> # prints:
> # 1 2
> # 3 4
> %d = (a=>1, b=>2);
> for ($b,$c) (@a) { print "$b $c"}
> # prints:
> # a 1
> # b 2
>
> Which with the merge() RFC makes the desired behaviour for multiple lists
> easy:
>
> @a = (1,2);
> @b = (3,4);
> for ($b,$c) merge(@a,@b) { print "$b $c"}
> # prints:
> # 1 3
> # 2 4
Now this would be cool. I guess this would be easier to interleave the
arrays, than to implement new ways of calling loops. Just one question, how
would merge behave on two different sized arrays.
@a = (1..5);
@b = (1..10);
merge(@a, @b);
##Would return (1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,??????????
Would it stop on the shortest array. Couldn't quite find such explanation
in the RFC.
Ilya
>
> So, no really new syntax, no special purpose behaviour, just the obvious
> extension of for-iterators to list context, and the introduction
> of one new
> function (which happens to have many other applications).
>
