> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Dec 08 11:02:33 2004]:
>
> Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > > If your interpretation of this is correct then I think the
documentation
> > > should be changed to clarify the point. I wouldn't have expected this
> result
> > > from that description. In fact that description makes me think that
> > >
> > > my @a=(2..5);
> > > while (my $x=shift @a) {
> > > print $x,"\n";
> > > redo if $x--;
> > > }
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > my @a=(2..5);
> > > while (my $x=shift @a) {
> > > STARTBLOCK:
> > > print $x,"\n";
> > > goto STARTBLOCK if $x--;
> > > }
> > >
> > > should be equivelent, but by your reading they aren't.
> >
> > I'm with Yves on this one.
>
> It occurred to me that there is another reason to not agree with the
> proposed interpretation. It means that redo in for loops and while
loops do
> different things:
>
> my @a=(2..5);
> for my $x (@a) {
> print $x,"\n";
> redo if $x--;
> }
>
> In this case the $x doesn't suddenly become undef after the redo....
>
> IMO the reported bug is indeed a bug.
>
Reopened :)
