Larry Wall wrote:
> Syntactically speaking it's too ambiguous to have both a unary < and a
> bracketing <>.
Cool. Do we get a > operator to use as an l-value, instead of print?
>$log = join localtime, 'difficult cramigudgeo';
> It's possible we're thinking of iterators wrong here. Perhaps
> iterators should typically be stored in @iter, not $iter. Then it's
> pretty obvious that
>
> for (@cases) { }
>
> iterates, because it's in a list context.
but it is not obvious that @cases is an iterator. Unfortunately we don't
have an infinite supply of line-noise to arbitrarily extend this optimized
hungarian notation ($@%&)
for C<for ($cases){...}> to do anything interesting, there's something
special about $cases, making iterator-in-scalar more visible than
iterator-in-array,
where it could easily be mistaken for a container instead of a generator.
> I think iterator magic
> always works in list context, and never in scalar.
okay, that disambiguates copy and retrieve handily, guess I'll delete the
five unsent e-mails eulogizing <angles> now
