Re: for all(@foo) {...}

> No, S03 is probably just wrong there. Junctions are scalar values, and > don't flatten in list context. Maybe we need something like: > > for =all(@foo) {...} > > to iterate the junction. for all(1,2,3).values { say $_; } reads nicely and works in pugs. A

Re: for all(@foo) {...}

So if you say : : for all(@foo) {...} : : it indicates to the compiler that there is no coupling between loop : : iterations and they can be run in any order or even in parallel. : : : : Is this a "for" on a one element list, which happens to : : be a junction, or does the all()

Re: for all(@foo) {...}

On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:02:16PM +1000, Brad Bowman wrote: : Hi, : : I'm trying to understand the following section in S03: : : S03/"Junctive operators" : : Junctions are specifically unordered. So if you say : for all(@foo) {...} : it indicates to the compiler t

for all(@foo) {...}

Hi, I'm trying to understand the following section in S03: S03/"Junctive operators" Junctions are specifically unordered. So if you say for all(@foo) {...} it indicates to the compiler that there is no coupling between loop iterations and they can be run in any o