Aaron Sherman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > what about > > > > while (do_something_with_side_effects_and_check_still_ok()) { > > > > I presume we don't want to do look-ahead here. > > Yes, I think he was saying exactly that we will do look-ahead > here. "we don't guarantee order of evaluation" is exactly saying > that, no?
As the "he" refered to, let me be absolutely clear that I am *not* suggesting any type of look-ahead here. I was specifically talking about the C<foreach> loop, where Perl is expected to implement the iterator. In a C<while> loop, the programmer controls the iterator, and would be surprised by a loop-ahead. The implication is that we can only provide advanced "PRE_LAST" style blocks (or their equiv.) on the C<foreach> loop. The fact that they are impossible on the C<while> loop should not constrain our thinking for the C<foreach> loop. Dave.
