Hi,
I understand that, but in that case how would you run on this:
(*a,*b,*c)=(\1,\2,\3);
for ($a,$b,$c) {
$_++;
print $_;
}
Merlin, The Mage
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 08:46 am, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 10:00:02AM -0400, Merlin, The Mage wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This don't looks like a bug to me.
> >
> > Why, may you ask?
> >
> > It's simple.
> >
> > 1..10 is a list constructor, so, by itself returns a list, then in
> >
> > for (1..10) { $_++ },
> >
> > $_ is a list element, and not a constant.
> >
> > on the other hand in
> >
> > for (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) { $_++ }
> >
> > each of the elements are directly and they are not list elements, but
> > constants.
>
> I think most users would expect
> for (1..6) ...
> for (1..5,6) ...
> for (1,2,3,4,5,6) ...
> To all behave identically (with the expection of possible perfomance gains
> in the 1..6 case).
>
> It's certainly what I'd expect.
>
> Dave.
--
Merlin, The Mage
new camelot site: affiliates.camelot.co.pt - Directorio de affiliate programs
