Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/7/05, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 6/7/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > sub foo (Code $code) {
>> > my $return_to_caller = -> $ret { return $ret };
>> >
>> > $code($return_to_caller);
>> > return 23;
>> > }
>> >
>> > sub bar (Code $return) { $return(42) }
>> >
>> > say foo &bar; # 42 or 23?
>> >
>> > I think it should output 42, as the return() in the pointy
>> > block $return_to_caller affects &foo, not the pointy block.
>> > To leave a pointy block, one would have to use leave(), right?
>>
>> I don't like this because the function bar is getting oddly
>> prematurely halted.
>
> Then let's put it this way:
>
> sub foo () {
> for 0..10 {
> when 6 { return 42 }
> }
> return 26;
> }
>
> And if that didn't do it, then let's write it equivalently as:
>
> sub foo () {
> &map(-> $_ { return 42 }, 0..10);
> return 26;
> }
>
> Do you see why the return binds to the sub rather than the pointy now?
>
> Also, we're going to be avoiding the return continuation problem with:
>
> sub foo() {
> return -> { return 42 };
> }
>
> my $code = foo();
> say "Boo!";
> $code();
>
> Says not:
>
> Boo
> Boo
> Boo
> ...
>
> But:
>
> Boo
> Can't return from subroutine that already returned at <eval> line 2.
My preference is for:
Boo
Boo
Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
Actually, my preference is for not writing such silly code in the first place,
but there you go.
