Bryan asked:
> > That would be:
> >
> > given ( $a ) {
> > when /a/ : { foo($a); goto BAR }
> > when /b/ : { ... }
> > BAR: when /c/ : { ... }
> > ...
> > }
>
> If they were statements, wouldn't that be:
>
> when /a/ : { foo($a); goto BAR };
> when /b/ : { ... };
> BAR: when /c/ : { ... };
> ...
>
> That's why I was considering them blocks, which I, of course, mislabelled
> clauses. Like if blocks and while blocks.
A C<when> is a statement, just as an C<if> or a C<while> is a statement.
> > Using C<next BAR> would (presumably) cause control to head up-scope
> > to the first *enclosing* block labelled 'BAR'.
>
> But wasn't a bare 'next' supposed to continue on to the next statement?
Yes.
> given ( expr ) {
> when /a/ : { foo; next }
> when /b/ : { bar }
> }
>
> If /a/ is true, do foo(), and then continue on to the next statement.
Yes.
> If that was/is still the case, then wouldn't a 'next LABEL' imply
> continuing on to the next statement labelled LABEL?
I guess that would be consistent too. Hmmmm.
> Of course, if it is no longer 'next', then that's fine, too.
No. As far as I know, it's still C<next>. That's just an extension of
the C<when...next> semantics I hadn't considered. Thanks.
Damian
