Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> I'm wondering how we get both
>
> for ($x,$y,$z) (@array) { ... }
>
> and
>
> for ($x,$y,$z) (@array1,@array2,@array3) { ... }
That's an -internals issue. Suffice it (here) to say that
the parser could be made to handle it. In fact, to the parser,
it's all the same. At least if C<for> has the proper prototype.
But as for the semantics... how does perl handle this:
for ($x,$y,$z) (@a1,@a2) { ... }
and
for ($x,$y,$z) (@a1,@a2,@a3,@a4) { ... }
Making the case where the number of iterators == the number of arrays
special may not be so good. Not to mention
for ($x,$y,$z) (@a1,@a2,4..12,@a4) { ... }
Probably we'll have to say that the user must explicitly zip if that
is what is desired.
> The square bracket syntax is alluring since it implies referenceness,
> but it goes the wrong way; squares enreference rather than dereference.
No; you can dereference on the inside, as you propose, or enreference
on the outside, as I propose.
for [ $a, $b, $c ] ( @things ) {
print "They are: $a, $b, $c\n";
}
The idea is to get pass them en bloc to C<for()>, which will then
set them up as iterators appropriately.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
