* Ed Peschko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Nov 2002 07:19]: [...] > for @a -> $a_variable1 is rw, $a_variable2 is rw; > @b -> $b_variable is rw; > @c -> $c_variable is rw; > @d -> $d_variable is rw; > @e -> $e_variable1 is rw, $e_variable2 is rw; > { > }
> is much, *much* clearer. IMO the current 'for' syntax suffers from > action at a distance, even if that distance is within the same line. > Related things aren't paired up nearly close enough to each other. Give this man a +1. I do prefer to have associated things placed with each other. And, as Simon pointed out, ';' is used to break things apart, thus the syntax above makes somewhat more sense. The best part is that I can easily comment out, delete, add part of the expression without worrying that I'm deleting the wrong thing. It may not be often that I will use the construct for multiple iterators, but I can foreseeably use at least 2, and with the added ease I can imagine using more =) cheers, -- Iain.