On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 04:41:29PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Allow me to repeat: instead of trying to shoehorn (or piledrive) new
> semantics onto existing keywords/syntax, let's create something new.
> The blocks of grep/map/... are special. They are not quite looping
> blocks, they are not quite sub blocks, they are different. Well, to
> be frank they are just very plain, ordinary, blocks that return their
> last value, but if we want to introduce both flow control
> (short-circuiting) and as a derived requirement, a return value
> (was the last test a success or a failure), they definitely begin to
> become not your ordinary blocks. I do not think the existing arsenal
> of keywords/syntax is enough to cover all the behaviour we are after.
> The 'pass' keyword someone suggested has potential (when combined with
> allowing last -- and next -- to work on these mongrel blocks).
Also it should be possible for someone to write thier own looping
construct like map/grep as a sub and take advantage of this.
Graham.
