On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:14:36PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> > Besides, I would expect an C<elsfor> to actually be a loop of it's own,
> > on the principle of "elsif = else + if" so "elsfor = else + for".
>
> So, you're suggesting we add C<elsunless> then? Just because it's
> possible doesn't mean it's necessary.
I'd say it's not only unnecessary, but undesireable. Hence the "Urk".
The standard:
else {
for @whatever {
}
}
Seems plenty adequate to the task. And more readable.
Allison
