> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote in message
>
> > Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
> > are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts over right to
> > left. Everything remaining is slurpable.
> >
> > Yes, it's more expensive to use, just like the RE version, but shouldn't
> > impact performance _too_ bad when it's not, since the behavior will be
> > detectable at compile time.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> There is another problem beyond efficiency: the P6 list semantics is lazy.
>
> The following is valid P6, AFAIK:
>
> for 1 .. Inf {
> print $_;
> last when 10;
> }
>
> And then most of the proposed methods (including popping off [EMAIL PROTECTED]) would
> not work.
No, popping at least would work. I can assure you of that.
> There is another problem that I see with a user defined my_for. We want to
> be able to write
>
> my_for 1 .. 5 { something }
>
> and not have to write:
>
> my_for 1 .. 5 {something };
>
> What is bothering me is the following: If we have a sub with the
> signature:
> sub very_complicated(Int $x, Code [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> how would the following get parsed:
>
> very_complicated 7 { print "Hello," } { print " world!"}
> # Those were the 3 args I wanted to pass
> # and the next one is outside the call
> sub next_routine {...}
>
> It seems to me, then, that calls to user defined subs will need to end
> with a semi-colon.
Semicolon syntax shortcuts are still up in the air. People constantly
get tripped up on whether or not to use a semicolon after whatever
kind of block. So, there's going to be some rule which will allow you
to omit them...
As of A4, "a } on a line by itself gets an implicit semicolon added,
if syntactically valid". But the rules might need to be a bit more
complex. We'll see.
Luke
>
> Abhi
>
>
> Abhijit A. Mahabal Home: 520 N. Grant St, Apt #2
> Graduate Student, Bloomington IN 47408
> Dept of Cog Sci and Computer Science, 812 331 2286
> Indiana University Off: LH301I; 812 855 8898
