"John W. Krahn" wrote:
>
> Jon Molin wrote:
> >
> > Jan Gruber wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Jon && list !
> > > On Friday 01 March 2002 11:29 am, you wrote:
> > > > Hi list!
> > > >
> > > > I've always thought there's a difference between for and foreach, that
> > > > for uses copies and foreach not. B
Jon Molin wrote:
>
> Jan Gruber wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Jon && list !
> > On Friday 01 March 2002 11:29 am, you wrote:
> > > Hi list!
> > >
> > > I've always thought there's a difference between for and foreach, that
> > > for uses copies and foreach not. But there's no diff is there?
> >
> > AFAIK th
Yeah, yeah. So I made a typo. :p
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 01 March 2002 18:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: TIMTOWDI Was: RE: some questions about for, foreach
It is really sad when people can't get their MLA
(Multi-Letter Ac
On Friday, March 1, 2002, at 10:22 , John Edwards wrote:
> I think it lies in the history of programming. Traditionally for loops
> look
> like this (when written in perl)
>
> for($i=1; $i<=100; $i++){
>print "$i\n";
> }
One could write, as an alternative to for:
$i=1;
while ($i<=100) {
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Dennis G. Wicks wrote:
>
> > It is really sad when people can't get their MLA
> > (Multi-Letter Acronym) correct!
> >
> > It should be TIMTOWTDI
> >
> > "There Is More Than One Way To Do It"
>
> I prefer
Err, ignore that... I h
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Dennis G. Wicks wrote:
> It is really sad when people can't get their MLA
> (Multi-Letter Acronym) correct!
>
> It should be TIMTOWTDI
>
> "There Is More Than One Way To Do It"
I prefer
http://www.chapelperilous.net/
-
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Nikola Janceski wrote:
> what the heck is TIMTOWDI?
It's TMTOWTDI
There's More Than One Way To Do It 00 pronounced like tim-toady.
-- Brett
http://www.chapelperilous.net/
-
It is really sad when people can't get their MLA
(Multi-Letter Acronym) correct!
It should be TIMTOWTDI
"There Is More Than One Way To Do It"
which is the Perl Hackers motto.
Good Luck!
Dennis
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROT
olin'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: some questions about for, foreach
I think it lies in the history of programming. Traditionally for loops look
like this (when written in perl)
for($i=1; $i<=100; $i++){
print "$i\n";
}
while foreach loops look like this.
@array = qw(o
On Mar 1, Jon Molin said:
>I've always thought there's a difference between for and foreach, that
>for uses copies and foreach not. But there's no diff is there?
>From perlsyn, "Foreach Loops":
The foreach keyword is actually a synonym for the for
keyword, so you can use for
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Jon Molin wrote:
> > It merely depends on your preferences, readable/maintanable code vs
> > quick && dirty.
>
> if there's no difference, what's the point of having both? I can't see
> how readable/maintanable would increase by adding functions with the
> same name, it'd rath
or foreach command supported. And, as the
saying goes, TIMTOWDI, and it wouldn't be perl without that ;)
OTOH I could be completely wrong :)
HTH
John
-Original Message-
From: Jon Molin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 01 March 2002 15:09
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: some q
On Mar 1, Jon Molin said:
>Jan Gruber wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 01 March 2002 11:29 am, you wrote:
>> >
>> > I've always thought there's a difference between for and foreach, that
>> > for uses copies and foreach not. But there's no diff is there?
>>
>> AFAIK there's not really a difference betwee
Jan Gruber wrote:
>
> Hi, Jon && list !
> On Friday 01 March 2002 11:29 am, you wrote:
> > Hi list!
> >
> > I've always thought there's a difference between for and foreach, that
> > for uses copies and foreach not. But there's no diff is there?
>
> AFAIK there's not really a difference between
Hi, Jon && list !
On Friday 01 March 2002 11:29 am, you wrote:
> Hi list!
>
> I've always thought there's a difference between for and foreach, that
> for uses copies and foreach not. But there's no diff is there?
AFAIK there's not really a difference between these two.
It merely depends on you
Hi list!
I've always thought there's a difference between for and foreach, that
for uses copies and foreach not. But there's no diff is there?
my @a = (1, 2, 3 , 4 , 5);
$_ += 2 for (@a);
print "@a\n";
3 4 5 6 7
my @a = (1, 2, 3 , 4 , 5);
$_ += 2 foreach (@a);
print "@a\n";
3 4 5 6 7
why isn
16 matches
Mail list logo
