On 21 Sep 2002, Smylers wrote:

> Larry Wall wrote:
> 
> > On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > 
> > : Does that mean that I can't
> > : 
> > :         for $x -> $_ {
> > :           for $y -> $z {
> > :                   print "$_, $z\n";
> > :           }
> > :         }
> > : 
> > : And expect to get different values?
> > 
> > That's correct.  Name the outer topic explicitly, not the inner one.
> 
> Is it as helpful for file input?  Many Perl programs use C<$_> to mean
> 'the current line'.  'A2' gives the Perl 6 syntax for this as:
> 
>    while $STDIN {
> 
> That C<while> loop may be quite long.  Maybe somewhere in the middle of
> it, it's necessary to have a C<for> loop iterating over something else.
> Or we want to switch on some state:
> 
>   given $who
>   {
>     when $us   { push %line{us}, $_ }
>     when $them { $num_them++ }
>     default    { warn "$_\n" if $DEBUG }
>   }
> 
> I think it could surprise people if the variable holding 'the current
> line' no longer holds that inside the C<for> or C<given>.
> 
> Having to alias C<$current_line> to C<$_> around inner loops and
> switches is messy, and potentially confusing -- the same value now has
> different names in different places.

Well, no.

sub process;
for <> -> $line {
    # both $line and $_ are the current line here
    given process $line {
        # $_ is process $line; $line is, well, $line
    }
}

I don't think this is confusing.  $_ is I<always> the current topic.  If 
you have a C<given>, you have a different topic.  Like the Apocalypse 
says, you alias the outer ones, not the inner ones. 

I used C<for>, because C<while> doesn't topicalize.

> Presumably something like this will be valid to use a different name for
> the current line:
> 
>   while defined my $line = $STDIN {
> 
> By C<$line> is just an ordinary variable in there, not a topic.  So we
> lose the benefits of being able to perform matches and substitutions
> directly on the current line without having to name it or type the C<=~>
> operator explicitly.
> 
> So I'm unconvinced that having an explicitly named topic always also
> clobbering C<$_> is a good idea.  But if it is, then we need a simple
> syntax for reading file input lines into an explicitly named topic.
> 
> Smylers
> 

Luke

Reply via email to