On 10/31/02 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Damian Conway writes:
>> BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving
>> sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back
>> in January, when we spent a week thrashing this syntax out.
>>
>> Of course, I can't speak for Larry, but in the end I concluded
>> that interleaving iterator variables is a false win, since it
>> trades reduced syntactic complexity for increased semantic
>> complexity, but only really improves the readability of a
>> comparatively rare case.
>>
> but why ? I am just curious about details.
Yeah, I'd like to hear those details too, because the alternate syntax:
> 1) for @a -> $x ; @b -> $y { ... }
sure looks a lot more attractive and sensible to me, and I agree with all
the arguments in favor of it so far. In particular:
* No "look here, then look there" connection between (possibly) widely
separated items.
* Simple to add or remove/comment-out individual stream/item(s) pairs
without having to "count" what are essentially positional parameters to make
sure you haven't mis-mapped anything in the process.
* More familiar use of the semicolon (IMO)
-John
