> Hmmm. Didn't think about that. That would be a nice way, that way you can
> manipulate it's behaviour depending with how many aliases you provide.
>
> for my $el1, $el2 ( (@foo, @bar) ) {
> print "$el\n"
> }
>
> $el1 and $el2 would of course be aliases, right?
]- yes ALIASING will be better, instead of copyng values into $el,$el2
scalars.... just one point I placed around them "(" ")", so that the arrays
would be flattened :") ... but now as u told it will be beter they to be
aliases.. so may be this is the right one :
for my ($e1,$2,e3...,$eX) ( @a1, @a2, @a3, .. @aX) {
.....blah...
}
and later on the first iteration $el's are aliased to the zero elements of
arrays (if the $el's are more than @a's then the latest $el's are not
aliased/probably undef'ed/, if @a's are more then all $el's are occuped and
on the next iteration they doesn't start to be aliesed again from the @a1
but from the next @a's !!).
If we have Scalars in the list, then they behave as array with one element
(just got aliesed every time).
If we have Hashes then VALUES get aliased... if someone wants keys it should
write explictly keys %hash (temporarily has to be created scalars may be),
the same with each.
just one possible solution.. may be there is many things i've not seen..
And then what about this :")
for my ( $e1, @els,$el3) ( @a1, 5..10, @a2,%h1, $x .. @aX) {
.....blah...
};
:"))) There is endless ways to do it : TIEWTDI
=====
iVAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====
