Guy (>), Carl (>>), Moritz (>>>):
>> > for @($ar) { ... }
>>
>> This would arguably be the nicest variant.
Well, actually, by "this" I meant all three variants that Moritz suggested. :)
>> > for @$ar { ... }
>> > or even
>> > for @ $ar { ... }
>> > or
>> > for @($ar) { ... }
Guy (>):
> for ( @$ar ) { ... }
>
> ?
That's Moritz' first suggestion, but with a pair of unnecessary
parentheses thrown in. :)
Larry (>), Carl (>>):
>: All I know is that `for $ar.elems { ... }` used to work for this case.
>: It doesn't seem to work anymore.
>:
>: Time to file a ticket, methinks.
>
>Er, .elems is always supposed to return a number. Maybe you want
>.values there instead, though that doesn't work either. :)
Yes, .values. Sorry about the confusion. (With all the shortcomings of
the name "length", it doesn't invite confusion about whether a number
or a list of things is returned, as "elems" and "values" might. That
said, I've only used either method a handful times, so maybe it's just
a question of language acquisition.)
// Carl
