>However it still doesn't answer how you are able to:
>return $true and next;
>return $false and next;
>return $true and last;
>return $false and last;
>return $true and redo;
>return $false and redo;
BZZZT
You *aren't* able to do that, silly!
However, if you would please please just stop us
From: 'John Porter' [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > However it still doesn't answer how you are able to:
> >
> > return $true and next;
> > return $false and next;
> > return $true and last;
> > return $false and last;
> > return $true and redo;
> > return $false and red
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> However it still doesn't answer how you are able to:
>
> return $true and next;
> return $false and next;
> return $true and last;
> return $false and last;
> return $true and redo;
> return $false and redo;
What if the semantics of C are changed so that the actual
sub ex
From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > Would it be possible to expand the function prototypes so
> > that a function could be defined to take a loop block
> > instead of a code block?
>
> Might be easier to do what I suggested, and unify the two
> types of b
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Would it be possible to expand the function prototypes so that a function
> could be defined to take a loop block instead of a code block?
Might be easier to do what I suggested, and unify the two types of blocks.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the
> Would it be possible to expand the function prototypes so that a function
> could be defined to take a loop block instead of a code block?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Damian
Would it be possible to expand the function prototypes so that a function
could be defined to take a loop block instead of a code block?
