[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > Simon Cozens writes: : > : Larry Wall: : > : > Not the same concept exactly. I think a C<break> within a C<for> : > loop : > : > would be the same as a C<next>, not a C<last>. : > : : > : Doesn't this break C and Shell resonance? : > : > We've done that before. :-) : : Umm, doesn't break translate basically as "leave, now" rather than as : "hop to the loop nexus and consider leaving"?
Sure, but it means "leave the switch now", not "leave the loop now". : What's your thinking in equating break w/ next? Only that for @foo { ... } can be thought of as shorthand for for @foo -> $temp { given $temp { ... } } I am also assuming that the break is only meaningful as a switch control, not a loop control. But I can see where it would be confusing. Perhaps C<break> should be illegal inside a C<for>, and the user forced to choose between C<next> and C<last>. Larry