Damian Conway wrote:
>
> Graham wrote:
>
> > Now I may be wrong here, but I thought I remembered something about
> >
> > .foo being the same as $_.foo
>
> It's certainly a possibility.
>
> > In which case you could do
> >
> > for (%database.$accountnumber) {
> >
> > .interestearned += $interestrate * .balance
> >
> > }
>
> Larry doesn't favour using C<for> thus, beause it introduces a sly
> list context. That argument convinced me.
>
> But there might well be another keyword for the same idea and that might tie
> into switch statements too.
>
> Damian
The data working group settled on %_ for this, as I recall it was
a consensus without objection.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187
Signature closed for repaving
