Luke Palmer wrote:
[Piers wrote:]
> > Look, closing braces, ending statements, not on a line by
> > themselves. There's code like this all through the apocalypse and
> > its associated Exegesis, so it looks to me like C<< rx/\} \s* \n/ >>
> > is the regex for 'end of statement'. Either that or w
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > [quote from A4]
> > To me, this looks like it has answers to all these questions.
>
> Up to a point. Look at the discussion of given/when in the same
> Apocalypse. Here's some example code from A4:
>
>
> given $! {
> when Error::Overflow { ... }
> wh
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is for everyone: <
>In Perl, this problem comes up most often when people say "Why do I
>have to put a semicolon after do {} or eval {} when it looks like a
>complete statement?"
>
>Well, in Perl 6, you don't, if the final c
Luke Palmer wrote:
> This is for everyone: <
>... put a semicolon after do {} or eval {} when it looks like a
>complete statement?"
>
>Well, in Perl 6, you don't, if the final curly is on a line by
>itself.
>
> To me, this looks like it has answers to all these questions.
This is for everyone: < Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> > So, the new rule for blocks and when the need semicolons seems to be
> > "You don't need a semicolon if the block is the last argument of a
> > subroutine which expects a block as its last argument", which is all
> > very well and all, but ... Ah.
Piers Cawley wrote:
> So, the new rule for blocks and when the need semicolons seems to be
> "You don't need a semicolon if the block is the last argument of a
> subroutine which expects a block as its last argument", which is all
> very well and all, but ... Ah... hang on, that's *expression* no
So, the new rule for blocks and when the need semicolons seems to be
"You don't need a semicolon if the block is the last argument of a
subroutine which expects a block as its last argument", which is all
very well and all, but where does that leave:
sub foo ( &block ) {...}
...
$wibb
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-09-07 at 14:22, Smylers wrote:
>
> > Should that C<+> be there? I would expect chomp only to remove a
> > single line-break.
>
> Note that this is in paragraph (e.g. C<$/=''>) mode
Ah, yes. I quoted the wrong case above. The final branch deals with
t
