> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > Before this gets simonized, let me add that this seems genuinely
> > useful: It provides a way of constructing a loop in a dimension that
> > is not really accessible, except via recursion.
> >
> > Luke: Would that have to be
> >
> > for outer([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ->Â @cp {...}
> >
> > ?
>
> ->Â @cp makes about as much sense as subÂ(@cp). C<outer> returns a
> list of array references, right? So it binds each one to @cp (the right
> of -> is a subroutine parameter list, remember?).
Are you saying that subÂ(@cp) is not, in fact, an alias for C<map &sub, @cp> ?
Anyway, I ask because I wonder what happens if @cp happens to contain some discrete
number of elements that is not equal to the number returned by C<outer>?
IOW:
@cp = (1, 2, 3);
for outer([0..255] xx 4) -> @cp {...}
Does the current number of entries have any impact?
for outer(@a, @b, @c) -> ($a, undef, $c) {...}
Does that work?
> > I'm opposed to it: bad huffman coding.
>
> That's why it's a non-ascii operator. But I agree, there's really no
> need for an operator here.
And more to the point, the fact that we've "opened the (code) page" doesn't mean that
we have an infinite supply of iso-latin-1 glyphs. We'd be prudent to conserve them.
=Austin
