Graham Barr wrote:
>Maybe not with 3 variables, but how many people do
>
> my %hash = @_;
> { ... }
>
>so that they can process named arguments ?
>
>Having this would remove the need for the hash assignment. Also it hash been
>suggested that it could potentially replace each
>
> { ... }
I'm not seeing an earth-shattering advantage of:
for my($k,$v) (%hash)
over
while(my($k,$v) = each %hash)
AFAICT, they act the same, just look a little different.
Eight characters difference, counting whitespace.
>
>Also the ability to traverse multiple lists at once
>
> for ($a,$b,$c) (zip(@a,@b,@c)) { ... }
I don't get it. This is a great advantage over:
@looparray = zip(@a,@b,@c);
while ( ($a,$b,$c) = splice (@looparray, 0, 3))
?
I'm thinking that if I were implementing such a loop, I'd probably
have set up my data structures so that instead of three arrays, I'd
have one array of three hash elements, and iterate over it:
for $iter (@data)
{
foo ($iter->{a}, $iter->{b}, $iter->{c});
}
People keep proposing bells, whistles, antennae, and tentacles
for the "for" statement, and I haven't seen one yet that had
seemed justified to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Roode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] print scalar reverse sort
Senior Software Engineer 'tona ', 'reh', 'ekca', 'lre',
Myxa Corporation '.r', 'h ', 'uj', 'p ', 'ts';
