Juerd writes:
> StÃphane Payrard skribis 2004-06-25 16:15 (-0400):
> > It is unpossible to stack loop modifiers without adding
> > conventions denoting the iterators.
>
> Is it really? I've always thought this would be useful enough:
>
> say .{foo} for @$_ for @foo;
>
> Although that can probably just be written as:
>
> say .{foo} for @<<@foo; # Looks strange. Is this correct?
Not so sure, but maybe. It certainly looks weird.
I like to think of hyperoperators in terms of map. So for some unary
operator Â:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is equivalent to:
map { Â$_ } @x
So it appears that:
say .{foo} for @[EMAIL PROTECTED];
Would work, but I'd be much more comfortable with:
say .{foo} for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
For reasons I can't describe. :-)
Luke
