On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:03:10AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Hi folks! > > > > > > I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of > > > the results. Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the > > > implementation at the moment. > > > > Yes. I personally think it makes more sense, in a language that allows > > infinite and/or lazy lists, to use the length of the shorter of the two > > streams, so that's what I did. When I implemented this, I had forgotten > > the Apocalypse passage mandating the other behavior. You're welcome to > > change it if you want ;). > > If I recall correctly, which I probably don't, there was a question at > YAPC::Europe (or maybe it was the Perl 6 Mini::Conference) as to what > the shorter array would return. The answer, from Larry or Damian, was > that it might return undef or maybe it would keep returning its last > value.
Exegesis 3 says: "This works for all unary and binary operators, including those that are user-defined. If the two arguments are of different lengths, the operator Does What You Mean (which, depending on the operator, might involve padding with ones, zeroes or undef's, or throwing an exception)." ~ John Williams
