Dov Wasserman writes: > "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > next D next N all D all N > > ====== ====== ===== ===== > > $iter $iter.pull ?1 $iter.pull ?2 > > @array @array.pull @array.values @array.pull @array > > $array $array.pull $array.values $array.pull @$array > > %hash %hash.pull %hash.values @array.pull %hash.values > > $hash $hash.pull $hash.values @array.pull $hash.values > > > > After all, a pull is the other end of a push. > > True in real life, but why not pop as the destructive evil twin of push? > > I think 'pop' more clearly indicates a removing iteration than 'pull'. > And its 25% shorter! But mainly because it's an established term for > the exact concept we're going for here.
Except that it's an established term for an operation at the _opposite_ end of the list. C<pop> is only the opposite of C<pull> if you're thinking about a stack; if you're thinking about a queue then C<shift> is the current named used. So C<pop> would work, but would yield values in the opposite order to that which many people are expecting. Smylers
