--- Rob Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > > do {
> > > my $empty;
> > > $empty ++;
> > > };
> >
> > Also, the do() is superfluous here, isn't it?
>
> I was trying to show something that would return a value in
> the same way as a subroutine block (so that I didn't need a
> return statement in the same way as a subroutine doesn't).
> I started out with a bare block, but realised that it needed
> a 'do' to have a value, and therefore make it non-redundant
> in context.
Got it.
my $x = { code, more code.... }
doesn't work, because the braces are expecting to be an anonymous hash
in that context, so they aren't a block.
my $x = do { code };
works, because do flips the context, expecting a block and returning a
value. That way I can say
my $fh = do { local $_ };
open $fh, $file or die $!;
for a cheap, quick, anonymous filehandle in a scalar. :)
(note to the peanut gallery: henceforward I digress!)
I've definitely used that trick...but all in all, for that *particular*
usage I recommend
use FileHandle;
my $fh = new FileHandle $file or die $!;
which is much more readable to the uninitiated, and still only two
lines of code. ;o]
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
