On Wednesday 03 April 2002 18:24, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> Sure, just say
>
> { loop (my $i = intializer(); condition($i); $i = advance($i)) { ... }
}
>
> : Perhaps something like:
> :
> : initalizer() -> $i { LOOP: NEXT { $i = advance($i); redo LOOP if
> : condition($i);} ... }
> :
> : except I'm not sure that that would have the same semantics.
>
> Other than that C<initializer> isn't going to be expecting a closure,
> and C<redo> would bypass the NEXT, and there's no loop there to
> C<redo>, and you'd have to make the parameter C<$i is rw>, why, it
> should work find. :-)
>
> : (Or, more generally, given a for loop with a "my", how sould perl52perl6
> : deal with it?
>
> Probably just by slapping an extra set of curlies around it.
Umm..... didn't you say bare blocks were going away?
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
