Exactly. We need a nondestructive slice. Some short piece of
syntax which expands
for [my](list of vars) (big list){ ... }
to
my @uniquelynamedcopy = (big list);
while ( [my](list of vars) = splice(@u15y,0,(length of list of vars))){ ... }
I think the absence of a comma btn the two lists would
be enough to tip C<for> off that it is this kind of situation,
since currently
for ($a) (split //) {
is a syntax error
Eric Roode wrote:
>
> Peter Scott wrote:
> >Graham Barr once allowed as how he thought it would be neat if you could say
> >
> > for my($x, $y, $z) (@list) { ... }
>
> ObLanguageMinimalist:
>
> Um. Is this so frequently-used that the above syntax is preferable to:
>
> while ( ($x, $y, $z) = splice (@list, 0, 3) ) {...}
>
> ? (notwithstanding the destructive nature of splice)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eric J. Roode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] print scalar reverse sort
> Senior Software Engineer 'tona ', 'reh', 'ekca', 'lre',
> Myxa Corporation '.r', 'h ', 'uj', 'p ', 'ts';
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yum, sidewalk eggs!
