Michele Dondi writes: > On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote: > > >to return an infinite list, or even > > > > return 0..., 0...; > > > >to return a surreal list. Either of those may be bound to an array > > Hope not to bark something utterly stupid, but... if one iterates over > such a list, may it be that on the first C<last> one really starts over > from the "second 0"? Well, unless some adverb is given to the point that > one really has to > > last :everything # or somesuch...
Balancing the mathematical preposterousness and the actual usefulness of such a thing, I really don't think that's going to fly. From the finite world, Ï and Ï*2 look exactly the same, and I'm pretty sure that, cool as Perl is, it's still in the finite world. In particular, calling C<last> and having the loop not exit is more than a little weird. Whatever you can do with that, you could do with a sligh redesign: return [ 0... ], [ 0... ]; And then your C<last :everything> is a C<next OUTER> for a nested loop. Luke