On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:53 -0700, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
> > But would it be reasonable to also provide a named-only parameter to
> > each for that purpose?
> It sounds reasonable to me, but :stop reads badly. Maybe C<:strictly>?
> Maybe it's not a function of a flag to each, but a marking that certain
> lists should be tapped non-exhaustively:
:stop wasn't a great choice, but :with is going to be complicated. I
don't THINK there's such a thing as a named slurpy, so:
> for each(=<>; :with(1..*)) -> ($line, $lineno)
would have to be:
for each(=<>, :with(1..*))
with the signature:
(Container :@with, Container [EMAIL PROTECTED])
I think....
But I don't think that will do, because it fails when you don't know
WHICH list would be the longest (or you have to specify them all
as :with, and that's rather counter-intuitive). Perhaps a stand-alone
adverb, :parity makes more sense.
Unless there's an obvious problem with it, let's go with :parity for
now, and we can change it if its usage becomes confusing.
> This all makes me wonder if there's any problem with mixing and matching
> these loop modifying subs:
>
> for each(roundrobin(@queue1; @queue2); :with(1..*)) -> $task, $job_num {
> say "Running task {$task.id}(#$job_no)";
> $task.run(:$job_num);
> }
>
> I hope not.
This makes me re-think each a bit... it might have to return an
iterator:
our Iterator multi Container::each (Bool :$parity , Container [EMAIL
PROTECTED] )
Given that, you could string eaches all you like, but otherwise it's not
terribly useful.
--
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"We had some good machines, but they don't work no more." -Shriekback
