Currently,
given $foo -> $bar
{
}
can be thought of as
foreach my $bar ($foo)
{
}
Given the way people with expectations will interpret break, setting
break === last seems like the right thing to do.
=Austin
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> : --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > Simon Cozens writes:
> : > : Larry Wall:
> : > : > Not the same concept exactly. I think a C<break> within a
> C<for>
> : > loop
> : > : > would be the same as a C<next>, not a C<last>.
> : > :
> : > : Doesn't this break C and Shell resonance?
> : >
> : > We've done that before. :-)
> :
> : Umm, doesn't break translate basically as "leave, now" rather than
> as
> : "hop to the loop nexus and consider leaving"?
>
> Sure, but it means "leave the switch now", not "leave the loop now".
>
> : What's your thinking in equating break w/ next?
>
> Only that
>
> for @foo {
> ...
> }
>
> can be thought of as shorthand for
>
> for @foo -> $temp {
> given $temp {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> I am also assuming that the break is only meaningful as a switch
> control,
> not a loop control. But I can see where it would be confusing.
> Perhaps
> C<break> should be illegal inside a C<for>, and the user forced to
> choose
> between C<next> and C<last>.
>
> Larry
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
