Adams Paul wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I have a program which navigates to a page and then extracts the links and
> navigates
> to each of those links.It works fine for the first web page(the program
> navigates to
> the first page and then extracts the links and visits all the links).When I
> th
"Chas Owens" schreef:
> Dr.Ruud:
>> Chas Owens:
>>> But Synopsis 4* says
>>>There is no foreach statement any more. It's always spelled
>>> for in Perl 6,
>>>so it always takes a list as an argument
>>
>> Well Perl6 isn't Perl, it's a successor to Perl. Like Perl did, Perl6
>> took
On 4/21/07, Dr.Ruud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Chas Owens" schreef:
> But Synopsis 4* says
>There is no foreach statement any more. It's always spelled for
> in Perl 6,
>so it always takes a list as an argument
Well Perl6 isn't Perl, it's a successor to Perl. Like Perl did, Per
"Chas Owens" schreef:
> But Synopsis 4* says
>There is no foreach statement any more. It's always spelled for
> in Perl 6,
>so it always takes a list as an argument
Well Perl6 isn't Perl, it's a successor to Perl. Like Perl did, Perl6
took a lot of good parts out of other language
On 4/20/07, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
> The grep clearly states that I am looking for something and its block
> tells me what the criteria are.
There are times where this list needs webctams. I'd love to have been
able to have seen you as you wrote that since I find it hard t
On 4/20/07, oryann9 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
So will foreach really be going away?
snip
If Synopsis 4* is to be believed, in Perl 6 there will not be a loop
named foreach. There will be a loop named for that does the has all
of the functionality of foreach (just like in Perl 5). Also t
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:47:18PM -0400, Chas Owens wrote:
> but you
> should be more concerned with making what you write clearly express
> your intent. This is why I prefer
>
> my @a = (0 .. 10);
> my $i = 0;
> for my $elem (grep {
--- Chas Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/20/07, John W. Krahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> snip
> > You are omitting one critical argument. For
> people who are stuck with older
> > versions of Perl and in your grep() example above
> the foreach expression
> > creates its list in memory w
On 4/20/07, John W. Krahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
You are omitting one critical argument. For people who are stuck with older
versions of Perl and in your grep() example above the foreach expression
creates its list in memory which may cause the program to die if the list is
large enough
Chas Owens wrote:
> On 4/20/07, yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There's been mentions of efficiency.
>> I'm under the impression that for the uses Perl is put to, the
>> efficiency of a loop is sorta irrelevent. If you are doing
>> harddrive/network access, the performance gain of one loop ove
On 4/20/07, John W. Krahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
I see nothing about backwards compatibility in there? ;-)
snip
Nope, I could not find any proof. I did find a merlyn quote on
perlmonks that states for and foreach have always been aliased, but
that is not how I remember it. But who a
On 4/20/07, yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's been mentions of efficiency.
I'm under the impression that for the uses Perl is put to, the
efficiency of a loop is sorta irrelevent. If you are doing
harddrive/network access, the performance gain of one loop over the
other is more of less in
yitzle wrote:
> There's been mentions of efficiency.
> I'm under the impression that for the uses Perl is put to, the
> efficiency of a loop is sorta irrelevent. If you are doing
> harddrive/network access, the performance gain of one loop over the
> other is more of less invisible.
> Come to think
Chas Owens wrote:
> On 4/19/07, John W. Krahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chas Owens wrote:
>> > Yes, foreach was aliased to for for backwards compatibility,
>>
>> Huh? Do you have something to back up that claim?
>
> Well, perlsyn* says
> The "foreach" keyword is actually a synonym for t
There's been mentions of efficiency.
I'm under the impression that for the uses Perl is put to, the
efficiency of a loop is sorta irrelevent. If you are doing
harddrive/network access, the performance gain of one loop over the
other is more of less invisible.
Come to think of it, the time for inte
--- Chas Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/19/07, John W. Krahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Chas Owens wrote:
> > > Yes, foreach was aliased to for for backwards
> compatibility,
> >
> > Huh? Do you have something to back up that claim?
>
> Well, perlsyn* says
>The "foreach" key
On 4/19/07, Rob Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
for (my $elem = $doc->firstChild; $elem; $elem = $elem->nextSibling) {
:
}
snip
I covered that in my earlier email:
Weirder stuff that you only tend to see people coming from a C background do
for (my $node = $head; $node;$node = $no
On 4/19/07, John W. Krahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chas Owens wrote:
> Yes, foreach was aliased to for for backwards compatibility,
Huh? Do you have something to back up that claim?
Well, perlsyn* says
The "foreach" keyword is actually a synonym for the "for" keyword, so
you can
John W. Krahn wrote:
Chas Owens wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jenda Krynicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Chas Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
foreach is dead, long live for.
I would myself use "for" for the C-style loops
And this is why. As long as people think "well, I have foreach which
is fo
Chas Owens wrote:
> On 4/19/07, Jenda Krynicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: "Chas Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> snip
>> > foreach is dead, long live for.
>>
>> William is dead, long live Bill?
>>
>> foreach and for are two names for the same thing and just as you can
>> call someone both Will
foreach is dead?
dangit... I loved that.
and, java 5 just put in a for loop construct that is very similar to the
foreach.
jen
On Thursday, April 19, 2007, at 08:08AM, "Chas Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 4/19/07, Jenda Krynicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: "Chas Owens" <[EMAIL
On 4/19/07, Jenda Krynicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Chas Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
snip
> foreach is dead, long live for.
William is dead, long live Bill?
foreach and for are two names for the same thing and just as you can
call someone both William and Bill you can use foreach and
From: "Chas Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 4/18/07, yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I got an array of hashes so I am using a foreach (@arr) loop to access
> > the hashes.
> > How do I go about looping through the hash's keys/values? I was
> > thinking of another foreach, but then the $_ gets
"Chas Owens" schreef:
> foreach is dead, long live for.
I am in favor of burying foreach as well, bu I see that many people
still like to use "for" for the C-style construct, and foreach for the
"other one".
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 4/18/07, yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I got an array of hashes so I am using a foreach (@arr) loop to access
the hashes.
How do I go about looping through the hash's keys/values? I was
thinking of another foreach, but then the $_ gets a bit screwed up...
Do I need to do this ?
foreach(@
On 4/18/07, yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I got an array of hashes so I am using a foreach (@arr) loop to access
the hashes.
How do I go about looping through the hash's keys/values? I was
thinking of another foreach, but then the $_ gets a bit screwed up...
Do I need to do this ?
foreach(@a
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:19 pm
Subject: Nested Loop
> Greetings,
Hello
>
> Basically I deleted a portion of a mysql database and need to
> insert the
> subnet back in. The output is suppose to increment the first
> field
> star
27 matches
Mail list logo
