On 10/3/06, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Seamons wrote:
>> It relates to some old problems in the early part of the RFC/Apocalypse
>> process, and the fact that:
>>
>> say $_ for 1..10 for 1..10
>>
>> Was ambiguous. The bottom line was that you needed to define your
>> parameter name for that to work, and defining a parameter name on a
>> modifier means that you have to parse the expression without knowing
>> what the parameters are, which is ugly in a very non-stylistic sense.
> I don't think that is ambiguous though.
It really is, and the very first question that everyone asks is: how do
I get access to the outer loop variable, which of course, you cannot for
the reasons stated above.
What about $OUTER::_ ? Shouldn't that access the outer $_ ?
Let's get P6 out the door, and then discuss what tiny details like this
do or don't make sense.
--
Markus Laire
