At 11:40 AM 01-25-2002 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff you wrote: >On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:57:25AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:43:07 -0500, Damian Conway wrote: > > > > >What we're cleaning up is the ickiness of having things declared outside > > >the braces be lexical to the braces. *That's* hard to explain to > beginners. > > > > But it's handy. And that was, until now, what mattered with Perl. > >No, handiness still matters with Perl. It's just that the balance has >tipped a wee bit towards the consistency/regularity/simplicity/whatever >side of the scale. > >Besides no one has commented on Steve Fink's (I think it was him) idea >to store the result of the most recently executed conditional in $?. I >kinda like that idea myself. It makes mnemonic sense. > >But then I'm sure that someone will come out of the woodwork and say >"What about if ((my $a = foo()) && ($b < 4)) ?" or something. To >which I'd say "Fooey!" I personally don't think that an extra set of >curlies are too high a price for getting rid of weird scoping rules. >But that's just me.
We have while (foo()) -> $a {...} doing the right thing. Why can't if foo() -> $a { ... } take the place of the perl5 if (my $a = foo()) {...} Too bad we can't do while (foo() -> $a) && ($b < 4) { ... } and have it do the right thing. >-Scott >-- >Jonathan Scott Duff >[EMAIL PROTECTED]