> So my initial code (which I modified a little...)
>
> for ( @foo, @bar ) {
> print "$_[0] : $_[1]\n";
> }
>
> for would set each element of the @_ array to correspond to the arguments
in
> for() , therfore $_[0] will equal to the current element of @foo and $_[1]
> will equal to the corresponding element of @bar. As I mentioned before
this
> can very easily be accomplished through 0..$#foo loop, but people
disagreed
> based on that it would be a nice option, in my opinion it's useless, but
if
> was implemented this could be a way:)
]- Yes ... and one more option :
for my $el1, $el2 ( @foo, @bar ) {
print "$el1 : $el2\n"
}
$el1 will get values from @foo and $el2 from @bar, but the following :
for my $el ( @foo, @bar ) {
print "$el\n"
}
will print :
$foo[0]
$bar[0]
$foo[1]
$bar[1]
if people like the other way they can write :
for my $el ( (@foo, @bar) ) {
print "$el\n"
}
will print :
$foo[0]
$foo[1]
...$foo[x]
$bar[0]
$bar[1]
....
is this correct , but now I'm looking at these too...
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/90.pod
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/91.pod
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/148.pod
so may be what must be the order of passing the arguments and other stuff
should be done via these proposed functions.
PS. I was thinking of that before, what if we have something let's call it
'transform' for transformation of any structure to other structure.. but as
i thought it should combine in some way the features of
switch,if-else,for/foeach, do, while, array/hash-slices, assignment
....etc.... .... oooops I'm talking about DWIM operator..... anyway... is it
possible to really add such "dwim" function/operator that can be modified on
the fly so that it suit all programmers tastes and don't make real mess...")
... ok i say it :")))
=====
iVAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====
