In Exegesis 4, Damian writes:
<blockquote>
It's important to note that writing:
for @a; @b -> $x; $y {...}
# in parallel, iterate @a one-at-a-time as $x, and @b one-at-a-time as
$y
is not the same as writing:
for @a, @b -> $x, $y {...}
# sequentially iterate @a then @b, two-at-a-time as $x and $y
</blockquote>
Now, I love that the for loop can do both of these things, but the subtlety
of the difference in syntax is likely, IMO, to lead to very difficult-
to-find bugs. It's very easy to miss that I've used a comma when I meant to
use a semicolon, and vice versa. And what's the mnemonic again?
Is there any way the syntax could be made different? Could the two
approaches be differently named? Perhaps the first could be C<foreach>, and
the second could be C<for>, and they could both use commas. Or am I just
being paranoid?
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
