On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 03:30:40PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 10:41, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:26:26AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > I would expect that to be "elsuntil", but as we're dropping "until" from
> > > the language, it's a moot point.
> >
> > Er, what?!? Who said we're dropping "until"? Did I miss something?
>
> Well, if there's no while (replaced by generic "loop", per Apoc4) why
> would there be an until?
Larry didn't say "loop" was replacing "while". He said that the magic
"do {} while" was going away to be replaced by "loop". "while" and
"until" (both as loops and modifiers) will still be around AFAIK.
> 1. Larry says loops will have "ELSE blocks" inside them.
Did he say that? Or was it inferred from NEXT, LAST, etc. by others?
> 4. I point out that elsif isn't so bad, and perhaps there should be an
> array of other "else" options.
And I say, why have several specific things when you can have 1
generalized thing that does the same job. (I'm not going to describe it
beyond that. It's up to Larry+Damian to define the shape of the thing)
> So, the answer to your question is: yes, I do propose that there should
> be an elsif, elsloop and elsfor. That's it. Three words, not an
> expansive list of ever-more-complex words.
You're just weird. :)
> Now, I agree that "else for" might make more sense, but it's very ugly
> on the grammar (given that we don't allow free statements like C does).
Hey, perl 6 is supposed to be optimized for the programmer, not the
perl parser ;-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
