Larry Wall writes: > I think decent formatting would make it clearer: > > for @a; @b > -> $x is rw; y { > $x = $y[5]; > }
But this isn't very scalable: for @a; @b; @c; @d; @e -> $a_variable1 is rw, $a_variable2 is rw; $b_variable is rw; $c_variable is rw; $d_variable is rw; $e_variable1 is rw, $e_variable2 is rw { } wheras: for @a -> $a_variable1 is rw, $a_variable2 is rw; @b -> $b_variable is rw; @c -> $c_variable is rw; @d -> $d_variable is rw; @e -> $e_variable1 is rw, $e_variable2 is rw; { } is much, *much* clearer. IMO the current 'for' syntax suffers from action at a distance, even if that distance is within the same line. Related things aren't paired up nearly close enough to each other. And I'd curse it if I was writing 'for' expressions as complicated as the second one. Which I WILL do, especially when writing code generators. Ed