On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 08:54:28AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> > As I understand things:
> >
> > BLOCK1 andthen BLOCK2
> >
> > evaluates BLOCK1 and then if BLOCK1 evaluates to "true" evaluates
> > BLOCK2. If BLOCK2 evaluates to "true" we're done. If BLOCK2
> > evaluates to "false", then BLOCK1 is re-evaluated.
>
> So how is that different from:
>
> do BLOCK1 until do BLOCK2
I guess it's not, but you can't (currently) chain those together like
so:
do BLOCK1 until do BLOCK2 until do BLOCK3 until do BLOCK4
Yes, I know this can be implemented in today's perl, but I think the
gist of the RFC is to provide the syntactic shorthand. Perhaps this is
so special purpose that it should be in a module.
There's also the cut operator which I didn't see mentioned in the RFC.
It blocks backtracking so that something like this:
B1 andthen B2 andthen cut B3 andthen B4 andthen B5
wouldn't backtrack to B2 once it forwardtracked to B3.
Okay, the more I think about it, the more I think it should be a
module.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
