Michele Dondi writes:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> >to return an infinite list, or even
> >
> > return 0..., 0...;
> >
> >to return a surreal list. Either of those may be bound to an array
>
> Hope not to bark something utterly stupid, but... if one iterates over
> such a list, may it be that on the first C<last> one really starts over
> from the "second 0"? Well, unless some adverb is given to the point that
> one really has to
>
> last :everything # or somesuch...
Balancing the mathematical preposterousness and the actual usefulness of
such a thing, I really don't think that's going to fly. From the finite
world, Ï and Ï*2 look exactly the same, and I'm pretty sure that, cool
as Perl is, it's still in the finite world.
In particular, calling C<last> and having the loop not exit is more than
a little weird. Whatever you can do with that, you could do with a
sligh redesign:
return [ 0... ], [ 0... ];
And then your C<last :everything> is a C<next OUTER> for a nested loop.
Luke
