From: "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It it too much to ask, of the creator of a tied array, to implement > their code in such a way that *reading* an element of that array > does not have significant side-effects?
Actually, I think that *is* a significant imposition. The whole point of tied arrays ( and hashes, scalars, etc) is that they act like arrays but internally do whatever they want. But.... could we go back a step? Could somebody explain why we need lookaheads, or perhaps what exactly a "lookahead" is in this context? Part of the current interface for tied arrays is that they know how long they are. It seems like it would be a relatively simply algorithm to say "if there are still elements left in the array then populate the loop variable with the next element and run the block. Else, leave the variables as they are, run the LAST block." -Miko
