> 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