Trey Harris wrote:
> So:
>
> for $results.get_next() {
> FIRST { print "Results:<BR>"; }
> print $_;
> NEXT { print "<HR>"; }
> LAST { print "Done."; }
> } else {
> print "No results.";
> }
>
> Do I have that right?
Yes. Presuming Larry decides in favour of C<FIRST> and C<else>.
Note too that the NAMED blocks are order-and-position independent, so (whilst I
agree that the order you wrote them was clearest) you could also have written
(with exactly the same effect):
for $results.get_next() {
FIRST { print "Results:<BR>"; }
NEXT { print "<HR>"; }
LAST { print "Done."; }
print $_;
}
if you were inclined, or:
for $results.get_next() {
LAST { print "Done."; }
print $_;
NEXT { print "<HR>"; }
FIRST { print "Results:<BR>"; }
}
if you were insane. ;-)
> And "<HR>" won't be printed before "Done."?
It *will* be printed there, according to the current design. A C<NEXT> is
*always* called when the iteration leaves the block (whether it's coming
around again or not). By analogy, C<NEXT> is a terminator, not a separator.
That's necessary because C<NEXT>s will be mainly used to do synchronous
clean-up on lexical values:
for @filenames {
my $fh = open $_ or die;
NEXT { close $fh }
...
}
Damian
