given (...) {
...
break;
...
}
for (...) {
...
last;
...
}
Same concept, different keyword. Good idea?
--
lathos: nothing can make up for the middle class dinner
party couple sex ARSE of Sade
On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 10:47, Simon Cozens wrote:
> given (...) {
> ...
> break;
> for (...) {
> ...
> last;
> Same concept, different keyword. Good idea?
Larry pointed this out. His reasoning was that given isn't exactly a
loop construct to the user. I know that I'm mor
Simon Cozens writes:
: given (...) {
: ...
: break;
: ...
: }
:
: for (...) {
: ...
: last;
: ...
: }
:
: Same concept, different keyword. Good idea?
Not the same concept exactly. I think a C within a C loop
would be the same as a C, not a C. So the argument s
Larry Wall:
> Not the same concept exactly. I think a C within a C loop
> would be the same as a C, not a C.
Doesn't this break C and Shell resonance?
--
Also note that i knew _far_ more about the people that call address
mungers names like 'lusers', 'egoists' or try to make luser giraffes.
Allison Randal writes:
: Of course, this idea may have already been considered and rejected, in
: which case I'm just curious to learn the reasons.
It's been thought about, but neither accepted nor rejected yet. It's
one of those things that depends on future decisions. Certainly Hugo
and Dan w
Simon Cozens writes:
: Larry Wall:
: > Not the same concept exactly. I think a C within a C loop
: > would be the same as a C, not a C.
:
: Doesn't this break C and Shell resonance?
We've done that before. :-)
Larry
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:18:20AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> We have an opcode, rx_compile, slotted for a generic regex compiler.
> The idea is that most regex-heavy languages (like Perl) would implement
> their own compilers with the extra semantics necessary, but many
> languages that don't need
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Cozens writes:
> : Larry Wall:
> : > Not the same concept exactly. I think a C within a C
> loop
> : > would be the same as a C, not a C.
> :
> : Doesn't this break C and Shell resonance?
>
> We've done that before. :-)
Umm, doesn't break t
The obvious extension to given is given , as:
given $foo -> $bar is rw,# I think this is more readable
$moo -> $baz is rw
{
...
}
or
given ($foo, $moo) -> ($bar is rw, $baz)
{
...
}
What would the default-variable scheme do in this context?
(Please, no-one suggest nesting 5 or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Simon Cozens writes:
: > : Larry Wall:
: > : > Not the same concept exactly. I think a C within a C
: > loop
: > : > would be the same as a C, not a C.
: > :
: > : Doesn't this break C and Shell resonance?
: >
: > We've
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: The obvious extension to given is given , as:
It's not obvious to me that you'd want more than one topic at a time.
And there's much to be said for defining C as a C that
provides a scalar context rather than a list context.
: given $foo -> $bar is rw,# I think t
Currently,
given $foo -> $bar
{
}
can be thought of as
foreach my $bar ($foo)
{
}
Given the way people with expectations will interpret break, setting
break === last seems like the right thing to do.
=Austin
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> : --- Larry
coming from a c++ background, I constantly type break instead of last only
to be scolded by the syntax checker. If my faubles result in incorrectly
executing program ( a mysterious error at that!) then I and many other C++
programmers will waste a lot of time hunting down a trivial bug. I
unders
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:07:12AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> It's been thought about, but neither accepted nor rejected yet. It's
> one of those things that depends on future decisions. Certainly Hugo
> and Dan will vouch for the fact that I was ruminating about similar
> issues last Wednesd
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:35:29PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> : What would the default-variable scheme do in this context?
>
> That's a problem. But a more basic problem is, what would a C do?
My guess was that it would behave as if handed a list. So:
for @foo -
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:25:29PM -0600, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:35:29PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > : What would the default-variable scheme do in this context?
> >
> > That's a problem. But a more basic problem is, what would a C
16 matches
Mail list logo
