David L. Nicol wrote: > That also wraps up the "for should have an explicit > iterator access method" thread handily! Just label your loop and > there you are! Well, right. Every loop would have a control object, whether it's nonymous or a-. -- John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Nathan Wiger
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Damian Conway
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dave Storrs
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Bart Lateur
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski