On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Jim Cromie wrote:
> so, assuming we have;
>
> print 'you gave me: @wordlist = '; # single quote - no interpolation
>
> for @words -> $it {
> print;
> FIRST { print '(' } # provisionally
> NEXT { print ',' }
> LAST {print ');' }
> }
> # and maybe
> else {
> print "();\n";
> }
>
>
> this yields:
> you gave me: @wordlist = ();
> or if (@wordlist) {
> # (damn - i want to say orif ;-)
> you gave me: @wordlist = (alpha,beta,gamma,);
>
> whereas
>
> print 'you gave me: @wordlist = (', join(',', @words), ")\n";
>
> doesnt include the last comma.
>
> if I remember the thread (now deleted, so cant be accurate)
>
> the last comma would be in there, unlike if it were in a join.
> cuz NEXT is a block terminator, not a block-inbetweener
>
> this is vaguely unfortunate, as its not so simple to write
> loops to generate SQL ( which isnt as friendly wrt to extra commas as
> perl is )
I'd rather have an in-betweener block too. Loops like this are very
common, and I hate doing "prefix" commas, if you know what I mean. I
realize NEXT often used for cleanup, so maybe you could introduse Yet
Another block, BETWEEN (or SQUEEZE).
Or are we just going to have to deal with this fact?
>
> separately ( to re-iterate earlier good thoughts ):
>
> loop {} else {}
>
> would be more visually distinct (easier to read) as
>
> loop {} otherwize {}
It would be especially clear if it were spelled correctly ;)
> esp when loop block is bigger than a screenful, new keyword keeps us
> from looking for the if,
> and it fits better with natural language (or at least dictionary language )
>
> where the connotation is a final alternative to lots of choices.
Yes, I think that's a good idea also. I suppose C<else> DWIMs better
though (I've taught people C++, and many times they wonder why they can't
put elses on loops). I think it's really a matter of opinion. Which is, I
suppose, why this list is here.
Luke
