On 4/17/02 1:20 PM, "Aaron Sherman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> This gets ugly when you mix in traditional C for (are we keeping that in
> Perl6?):
Yes, but it's name is changing to C.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 11:23, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:38:59PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > I've got the horrible feeling that doing it this way will lead to
> > nasty ambiguities in parsing, but if that's not the case then I must
> > confess that I prefer this synt
On 4/17/02 5:38 AM, "Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> I've got the horrible feeling that doing it this way will lead to
> nasty ambiguities in parsing, but if that's not the case then I must
> confess that I prefer this syntax. Especially if you want to do
> something like:
>
> for
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:17:24PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> In Exegesis 4, Damian writes:
>
>
> It's important to note that writing:
>
>
> for @a; @b -> $x; $y {...}
> # in parallel, iterate @a one-at-a-time as $x, and @b one-at-a-time as
> $y
>
> is not the same as writing:
>
>
> Now, I love that the for loop can do both of these things, but the subtlety
> of the difference in syntax is likely, IMO, to lead to very difficult-
> to-find bugs. It's very easy to miss that I've used a comma when I meant to
> use a semicolon, and vice versa. And what's the mnemonic again?
We
In Exegesis 4, Damian writes:
It's important to note that writing:
for @a; @b -> $x; $y {...}
# in parallel, iterate @a one-at-a-time as $x, and @b one-at-a-time as
$y
is not the same as writing:
for @a, @b -> $x, $y {...}
# sequentially iterate @a then @b, two-at-a-time as
