On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Leon Timmermans <faw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would propose there to be one difference between for an map: map > should bind its arguments read-only, for should bind them read-write. > That would make at least one bad practice an error.
Why is r/w map a bad practice if r/w for is not? Do you look at Perl's "map" and think "A-ha! The map operation is a functional programming idiom, therefore it must be side-effect free!"? Because that view doesn't feel terribly Perlish to me. While I mostly use both map and for in readonly mode, I've been known to use map for quickie in place mutations, and not necessarily in void context: my @prev = map { $_++ } @values; I'm not arguing for the binding to default to rw - you can always use "is rw" when needed. I just don't see any reason why the default binding behavior of map and for should be different. -- Mark J. Reed <markjr...@gmail.com>