>Pardon my repetitiousness, but I'm puzzled at the total lack of response
>AFAICS to my proposal for a second argument to next/last/redo. Was it so
>stupendously moronic as to be beneath anyone's dignity to rebut, or
>what? Either I'm out of it, or it looks a whole lot more appealing than a
>new keyword.
IMHO THAT (two args) would be overkill. These are operators, simple flow
control words that also make the source very easy to read.
i really can;t see adding a second arg because ythen you're going to have
to do stuff like
next undef, 1
etc. which is wholly unappetizing. The only way I myself see extending
current words is to use some special label name. not that that is very nice...
Only if this special name perhaps contained a character which is not valid in
a label... (are there any? [:*] ?)
I personally like the idea of somehting like feign (or whatever it's called),
nice and generic. But if not that and not 2 arg next etc. And I may have
missed this thread if someone hit upon it, but what's wrong with
allowing something like
grep ITEM: { /^[1-9]/ || next ITEM } @list;
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -nl
BEGIN{($,,$0)=("\040",21);@F=(sub{tr[a-zA-Z][n-za-mN-ZA-M];print;});
$_="Gnxr 1-3 ng n gvzr, gur ynfg bar vf cbvfba.";&{$F[0]};sub t{*t=sub{};
return if rand()<.5;$_="Vg'f abg lbhe ghea lrg, abj tb.";&{$F[0]};$_=0;}
sub v{print map sprintf('%c', 2**7-2**2),(1 .. $0);}&v;}{$_++;$_--;$_||=4;
if($_>>2||($_<<2>12)){$_="Vainyvq ragel";&{$F[0]};last;}&t;$0-=$_;$_="Lbh jva";
die(&{$F[0]}) if !($0-1);$0-=$0%2?$0>2?2:1:$0<=5?$0>2?3:1:rand>.5?1:3;
$_="V jva";die(&{$F[0]}) if !($0-1>1);}&v __END__ http://pthbb.org/
MOTD on Prickle-Prickle, the 35th of Bureaucracy, in the YOLD 3166:
Were that I say, pancakes? --JP
