(in pugs). With implied looping that
would be 10 lines, starting with two 0-lines.
--
Grtz, Ruud
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
for ^5 { say } # 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
The 'for' can go if a list (and also an array) would imply looping, when
it is positioned next to a block:
a. say (0..4);
b. { say; say } (0..4);
I'm not really sure: while I like it for its conciseness -and
Ruud H.G. van Tol:
b. { say; say } (0..4);
b. now produces 2 lines with 01234 (in pugs). With implied looping
that would be 10 lines, starting with two 0-lines.
Standard:
do {say; say} for 0..4
for 0..4 {say; say}
Wishful:
(0..4) ยป{say; say}
pugs doesn't seem to do the
(f,oo,bar
) { say; say }
: d. @{0..4} { say; say }
: (etc.)
:
: b. now produces 2 lines with 01234 (in pugs).
Which is wrong by the current spec, by the way. It should be a syntax
error to have two terms in a row. Bare parens can't be function args
unless they're abutted or use ..
: With implied looping
Larry Wall skribis 2005-11-23 9:19 (-0800):
^5.each { say }
Without colon?
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:21:56PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-11-23 9:19 (-0800):
: ^5.each { say }
:
: Without colon?
Yeah, that one doesn't work a couple of way. Unfortunately .each still
binds tighter than ^ too. So it'd have to be:
Larry Wall:
I can see the mathematical appeal of coming up with a language in
which there is a meaning for every possible combination of tokens.
Yes, that sounds like my language. I agree it's not Perl. And not a lot
of other things too.g
It's a counterintuitive fact
that languages that
