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 out if a retval > isn't wanted (as in do {} while) but should return out if one is? > Or maybe a last should be an undef return? I too would like to see last, next, & redo work with do loops. I don't particularly care what they return; I don't think I've ever written a do loop where I used the return value. 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? -- Chris Madsen http://www.trx.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] TRX Technology Services (214) 346-4611
- The distinction between "do BLOCK while COND&qu... Bart Lateur
- Re: The distinction between "do BLOCK whil... Peter Scott
- Re: The distinction between "do BLOCK ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: The distinction between "do BL... Tom Christiansen
- Re: The distinction between "d... Bart Lateur
- Re: The distinction between &q... Tom Christiansen
- Re: The distinction betwee... Christopher J. Madsen
- Re: The distinction be... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: The distinction be... Christopher J. Madsen
- Re: The distinction be... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: The distinction be... Tom Christiansen
- Re: The distinction be... Christopher J. Madsen
- Re: The distinction be... Tom Christiansen
- Re: The distinction be... Christopher J. Madsen
- do BLOCK as inline sub... Uri Guttman
- Re: The distinction between "d... Peter Scott
- Re: The distinction between &q... Christopher J. Madsen