Dan Hursh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ouch. I hadn't thought of that. I'm a big fan of litering loops with
>
> discard(),next if dontCareBecause(); # it don't matter here
I like the idea here, but I don't think we need the comma...
> type constructs. I was going to suggest
>
> print and next if /stgh/;
>
> but there is a difference that will probably bite you when you least
> expect it. You could say
One word: xor
Yes, this is abusing a logical operator, which was intended to test a
condition, for flow control. If that makes you feel dirty, you could
always write a traditional conditional with a block.
--
$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b->()}}
split//,"[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ --";$\=$ ;-> ();print$/
