On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 12:01:24PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "GB" == Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GB> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:30:07PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:05:29AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> >> > Michael G Schwern writes:
> >> > : (grep {...} @stuff)[0] will work, but its inelegant.
> >> >
> >> > It's inelegant only because the slice doesn't know how to tell the
> >> > iterator it only needs one value. If it did know, you'd call it
> >> > elegant. :-)
> >>
> >> I'd call it Haskel! I've just installed it and have been skimming the
> >> docs.
> >>
> >> Would be neat if: my($first) = grep {...} @list; knew to stop itself, yes.
>
> GB> Yes. This could probably fall out of the suggestion that wantarray
> GB> (or want) return how many elements are wanted in a list context
>
> provided the list was literal. if it is created via a function or an
> expression then you have to pass the laziness and wantarray count up the
> line, etc. i don't know if we (or larry) wants to make all code have a
> maximum iteration/count value implicitly passed into them and have such
> lazy evaluation at all times.
wantarray-ness is already passed along the call stack today. Thats
the whole point of it. So what is the difference in passing a number
instead of a boolean ?
How this cooperates with lazy is a different matter entirely.
Graham.
