This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Lightweight Threads
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Steven McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 30 Aug 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version: 1
Number: 178
=head1 ABSTRACT
A lightweight thread
This is making the index variable into an a wrapper object.
Since the underlying value can't (or shouldn't) know which of the n
containers it is in.
> "JSD" == Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JSD> Interesting. I must have missed this. I'm not wild about the syntax,
JSD>
>I wasn't referring to the lvaluability of assignment. Which does confuse
>me, but only from the scoping of 'my' in something like (my $foo = $bar)
>+= 10. Which is very different from while(my $foo=bar) {...}.
The scoping of declarations in control statements is very special.
Consider what happ
>What happened to the --nice, elegant and sparse array friendly--
>extension of each/keys/values?
Well, there's already delete. I suppose those will come. But first
we need a sparse-array friendly intenral representation, no? I always
tell people to use hashes for sparse arrays.
--tom
>I don't think anyone *needs* this, it would just be a nice syntactic
>sugar. Haven't you ever coded a foreach loop only to realize later
>that you need the index of the thing you've iterated to? Wouldn't it
>be nice to just have access to it rather than hoop-jumping a little?
On rare not commo
John McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I can see the current consensus is as follows:
> 1. Implicit variable: nice but not really worth the trouble.
> 2. Explicit variable between foreach and the array: might conflict
> with other proposals.
> 3. Explicit cou
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:18:08AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> I don't perceive why this is so common a need as to require special
> magic. And for those cases, a three-part for(;;) loop handles it,
> since that tells you the index number directly. Could someone
> explain why they need this
>Interesting. I must have missed this. I'm not wild about the syntax,
>but I like the idea. If everything become objects under-the-hood,
>then we could have:
> for $a (@array) { print "$a is at $a->index\n"; }
>No, I'm not wild about that either, but it's an idea.
I don't perceive why
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 05:51:44PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> I'd like to see a last-container-key attribute included as
> a possibilty; and that attribute called ":n" to match the
> argument of integer functions in introductory algebra. This
> approach gives us
>
> for $a @some_list {
