Likely this should be an RFC. I'm too lazy to write it in that format
right now, but I want to send this thing out before it slips my mind
again. Somebody else may pick it up, if he or she wants it. If not, I'll
eventually may have to do it myself.
The articial distinction between
do
At 11:38 AM 8/31/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
The articial distinction between
do BLOCK while condition;
and
EXPR while condition;
should go, because the former is nothing but a subcase of the latter.
Currently, the former executes the do BLOCK at least once, while the
I want last, next, etc. to magically work where I want them to:
do {
last if /booger/;
...
} while ( ... );
Nat
I want last, next, etc. to magically work where I want them to:
do {
last if /booger/;
...
} while ( ... );
Special cased for postfix modifiers, or generalized? If so,
what's the return value?
$x = TERM OP do { BLOCK } OP TERM;
Actually, these are all pretty similar in
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:21:26 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
One could argue that do{} should take return so it might have a value,
but this will definitely annoy the C programmers.
So what.
"Annoying" would be to have a situation that is *less* powerful in Perl
than in C, not *more*.
Oh, and
Tom Christiansen writes:
One could argue that do{} should take return so it might have a value,
but this will definitely annoy the C programmers.
So what.
So what is that it *already* annoys us, which is *why* we would like to
last out of a do. Perhaps you should be able to last
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 01:26:26PM -0500, Christopher J. Madsen wrote:
I too would like to see last, next, redo work with do loops.
*Only* do loops or do blocks in general? And what should they do?
do { ... last; ... }; # exit the block immediately
do { ... next;
At 11:21 AM 8/31/00 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
I want last, next, etc. to magically work where I want them to:
I too want last to work in do loops.
do {
last if /booger/;
...
} while ( ... );
Special cased for postfix modifiers, or generalized? If so,
what's the return
Peter Scott writes:
I dunno, maybe a last in a do block whose value is used by
something should be a syntax error. We're talking about code like
$x += do { $y = get_num; last if $y == 99; $y } while defined $y;
right? *Shudder*
Yes, but we're also talking about code like
The more interesting case is this:
#!/my/path/to/perl
sub foo_generator { my $a = shift; sub { print $a++ } }
my $foo = foo_generator(1);
$foo-();
Thread-new($foo);
Is $a shared between threads or not?
$a is shared between threads.
The anonymous subroutine is a
Tom Christiansen writes:
However, I really don't want to see 'return' become a kind of 'last'
for do{}. How would I return from a subroutine from within a do loop?
You already can't do that (as it were) from within an eval.
Yes, but 'eval' has the semantics "run this code but don't let
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Thread Programming Model
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Steven McDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 31 Aug 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version: 1
Number: 185
Status: Developing
=head1
use Thread;
$thread = new Thread \func , @args;
$thread = new Thread sub { ... }, @args;
async { ... };
$result = join $thread;
$thread = this Thread;
@threads = all Thread;
$thread1 == $thread2 and ...
yield();
critical { ... }; # one thread at
$thread = new Thread \func , @args;
$thread = new Thread sub { ... }, @args;
async { ... };
$result = join $thread;
critical { ... }; # one thread at a time in this block
=item Casync BLOCK
Executes BLOCK in a separate thread. Syntactically, Casync BLOCK
works
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
This is making the index variable into an a wrapper object.
No it isn't. Or at least it doesn't have to.
Often there is a need to find the key an object was found in a container.
More often in hashes than in arrays.
And I think this discussion belongs in -data.
15 matches
Mail list logo
