Me wrote:
> > "given nothing...":
> >
> > given () { ... }
>
> do { ... }
>
> seems simpler.
But doesn't have the same effect. A C<when> inside a C<do> responds to
the current value of the "subject" specified by any surrounding
topicalizer (i.e. C<given>, C<for>, C<sub>, etc.)
>
> > Suppose you want to preserve $_ and alias
> >
> > given $value -> $g {
>
> '->' seems more visually noisy than it need be in this case.
>
> Perhaps:
>
> given $value as $g { ... }
>
> for @foo as $f { ... }
>
> But, I can see how
>
> > for 0 .. Inf; "a" .. "z" x 1000 -> $i; $a {
>
> for 0 .. Inf; "a" .. "z" x 1000 as $i; $a {
>
> would be seen as a counterexample by some.
Yep. By Larry, for one. And me, for another. ;-)
> > KEEP blocks would only be executed if the block succeeded.
> > UNDO blocks would only be executed if the block failed.
>
> What defines success? I sometimes raise exceptions to signal
> that I'm done, with success, and it's time to wrap up and go back
> to some calling code several levels up the stack. But I guess this
> is an unusual case so not being able to use KEEP and UNDO
> as intended is OK.
Just derive your "successful exception" from Control:: rather that
Error:: (or whatever the final standard names are).
> Or maybe each block has a Success class exception object
> associated with it unless a different exception is raised, and
> KEEP is called if the exception isa(Success). Then I can raise
> a subclass of Success.
Yep. Just s/Success/Control or whatever Larry decides/
Damian
