> Supercomma!
> [snip]
> Larry then confessed that he was thinking of changing the declaration of
> parallel for loops from:
> for @a ; @b ; @c - $a ; $b ; $c {...}
> to something like:
> for parallel(@a, @b, @c) - $a, $b, $c {...}
Assuming that semicolon is no longer going to be a supercomma in these
situations, does that mean that we C addicts can have C<for> back to do
the kinds of loops that we mean when we say "for loops"? I really
don't much like the C<loop> keyword.
for ($i = 1; $i < 10; $i++) { ... }
(Or is there still some syntactic ambiguity that I haven't thought of?)
--
Debbie Pickett http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~debbiep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The city lights shine seaward, swirling in a trance, her eyes upon the water
alone in her last dance." - _Oh Life (There Must be More)_, Alan Parsons
