> Angel> Could we have: > > Angel> foreach $item in @arr {...} > > Angel> Instead of > > Angel> foreach @arr -> $item {...} > > Larry considered that, and declined. Not sure of the reasons.
* He didn't want a keyword that would become lost when lots of variables or sub calls are used in the setup. * Using "in" doesn't work well linguistically with "given", "sort", "map", etc: given $var in $x {...} @data = sort in $i, $j {...} @data; @data = map in $x {...} @data; * The left-to-right sequencing of -> keeps the data near the "for" and the aliases near the block. * Gives the poor discarded -> a new lease on life as a synonym for "sub" * New inline code smiley face possible: my $sum =-> @data { shift @data + $sum(@data) } ;-) Damian PS: It's "for" not "foreach". "Tharrrr ken beeeee onla wun!"