On 4 Aug 2000 14:59:06 -0000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> %special = ( woohoo => 1, d'oh => 1 );
>
> while (<>) {
> switch ($_) {
>
> case (%special) { print "homer\n"; last } # if
>$special{$_}
Hold it. Is that
if($special{$_}) { ...
or
if(defined $special{$_}) { ...
or
if (exists special{$_}) { ...
>From a purist point of view, [3] makes the most sense. [1] may be more
practical, in a lot of cases. [2] is somewhere in between the two, where
a user could provide exceptional cases, for which this is supposed to
fail. Er... something like that.
--
Bart.
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Ken Fox
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statem... Jeremy Howard
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statem... Ken Fox
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statem... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch s... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin swit... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch s... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Damian Conway
- ConwayPerl (was Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switc... Jeremy Howard
- RE: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Bart Lateur
- RE: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Lipscomb, Al
- RE: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Damian Conway
- RE: RFC 22 (v1) Builtin switch statement Lipscomb, Al
