Re: user-defined operators?

2004-06-27 Thread Alexey Trofimenko
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:55:26 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, any operator or function that knows how to call a closure can function as a short-circuit operator. The built-in short-circuit operators are a bit special insofar as they're a kind of macro that treats the right side

if, loop, and lexical scope

2004-06-27 Thread Alexey Trofimenko
AFAIR, I've seen in some Apocalypse that lexical scope boundaries will be the same as boundaries of block, in which lexical variable was defined. so, my question is, what the scope of variables, defined in Cif and Cloop conditions? in perl5: my $a=first\n; if (my $a=second\n) {print $a}

Re: user-defined operators?

2004-06-27 Thread Luke Palmer
Alexey Trofimenko writes: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:55:26 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, any operator or function that knows how to call a closure can function as a short-circuit operator. The built-in short-circuit operators are a bit special insofar as they're a kind of

Re: if, loop, and lexical scope

2004-06-27 Thread Luke Palmer
Alexey Trofimenko writes: AFAIR, I've seen in some Apocalypse that lexical scope boundaries will be the same as boundaries of block, in which lexical variable was defined. Yep. Except in the case of routine parameters, but that's nothing new. so, my question is, what the scope of