> Second, is there a prototype-way to specify the arguments to "for"
> (specifically, the first un-parentesized multidimensional array argument)?
> In other words, is that kind of signature expected to be used often enough
> to justify not forcing people to explicitly extend the grammar?
If you're talking about parallel iteration, I know what you mean. I think
there's a time for a special case, and that's one of them. But it
wouldn't be hard to extend that into a signature, I suppose.
If you're talking about the regular syntax:
for @a, @b -> $x { ... }
Would that be:
sub rof (array *@ars, &body) {...}
or
sub rof (*@ars is array, &body) {...}
Saying specifically a list of arrays. Also, would that list gobble up
everything, or would it actually allow that coderef on the end?
Luke
