On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:13:29 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:39:56AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
:
: > if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
: > instead?
:
: A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
:
: print,next if /stgh/;
:
: kinda syntax too, and I, for one, will regret not having it anymore, I
: wonder wether something vaguely like the following example could (be made
: to) work:
:
: print.then{next} if /stgh/;
That's unnecessary--the comma still works perfectly fine for this, since comma still evaluates its arguments left-to-right. The *only* difference about comma is what it returns in scalar context. Most uses of the so-called C-style comma (including this one) are actually in void context, and in that case whether the return value is a list or the final value Doesn't Really Matter.
Larry
perl is filled with functions which do different things in different contexts. It seems that in perl6 with plenty of "new contexts", it will be even more stimuls for that habit. So real question is:
in expression C< a(),b(),c() >, used in void context, what context is given to a() and b()? is there any issues which do not allow us to imply void context instead of list context here?
