On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 01:14, Luke Palmer wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Allison Randal wrote: > > > Besides, I would expect an C<elsfor> to actually be a loop of it's own, > > on the principle of "elsif = else + if" so "elsfor = else + for". > > So, you're suggesting we add C<elsunless> then? Just because it's > possible doesn't mean it's necessary.
Not a bad idea. It doesn't strike me as being quite as helpful as the conditional loops, but you could probably talk me into it.
