On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
for ^5 { say } # 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
The 'for' can go if a list (and also an array) would imply looping, when
it is positioned next to a block:
a. say (0..4);
b. { say; say } (0..4);
I'm not really sure: while I like it for its conciseness -and in
particular I've often desired a very short, but clear, way to say: "do
this #n times"- IIUC (Perl6 new rules for blocks/closures and
dereferencing) this is only one dot or even whitespace away from passing a
list into an anonymous sub. Which may be confusing after all...
The problem (if any!) does not persist for the postponed block form. But
as far as code like
^5 { do_it };
is concerned, it is even _too_ concise, and I'd prefer some additional
syntactical indication about what's going on. For my tastes,
^5: { do_it }; # But then also 5: { do_it }; [*]
would be perfect, were not the colon already taken for a bazillion other
uses...
OTOH if I remember correctly there should be (provision for) a C<xx>
variant that takes a closure and executes it over and over again.
[*] Or 5 -> { do_it }; but I strongly suspect this would interfere with
pointy subs.
Michele
--
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.
This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
- Albert Einstein
