> Of course, that wasn't exactly what you were asking, but it does present
> a practical solution when you want to:
>
> {say $_ for =<>}.() if $do_read_input;
>
> Which I just verified works fine under current pugs.
Thank you.
Hadn't thought of that. I think that is workable.
But it also brings the question: If you can do it ugly [1] easily, why not
allow for it do be done prettily [2] ?
say $_ for =<> if $do_read_input
Paul
[1] It isn't really that ugly - just not as pretty.
[2] Arguably the "pretty" version is also more ambiguous whereas the "ugly"
version leaves little room for doubt.
