[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Eew. That looks like a bug in perl somewhere.
>
> shuffle 1 .. 10; # Fine.
> shuffle 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; # Not ok.
[Perl5-porters is CC'd on this. Note to them: shuffle() does a
for/foreach loop over @_ and modifies the insides. Followup set to
perl5-porters, but I post via NNTP and don't know if SMTP people will
see that...]
I would not be at all surprised if Perl is doing some optimization to
translate
for(1..10) {...}
to
for($i=1;$i<10;++$i){local($_)=$_[$i]; ... }
or something roughly equivalent. To reduce it even farther, one of
these works and the other doesn't - try it and see:
perl -e 'for (1..10) { $_++; }'
perl -e 'for (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) { $_++; }'
Is this a known bug?
--Bill.
--
William R Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMAZING BUT TRUE: There is so much sand in northern Africa that if it were
spread out it would completely cover the Sahara Desert!
