On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:14:36PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Allison Randal wrote: > > > Besides, I would expect an C<elsfor> to actually be a loop of it's own, > > on the principle of "elsif = else + if" so "elsfor = else + for". > > So, you're suggesting we add C<elsunless> then? Just because it's > possible doesn't mean it's necessary.
I'd say it's not only unnecessary, but undesireable. Hence the "Urk". The standard: else { for @whatever { } } Seems plenty adequate to the task. And more readable. Allison