On 10/31/02 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Damian Conway writes: >> BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving >> sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back >> in January, when we spent a week thrashing this syntax out. >> >> Of course, I can't speak for Larry, but in the end I concluded >> that interleaving iterator variables is a false win, since it >> trades reduced syntactic complexity for increased semantic >> complexity, but only really improves the readability of a >> comparatively rare case. >> > but why ? I am just curious about details.
Yeah, I'd like to hear those details too, because the alternate syntax: > 1) for @a -> $x ; @b -> $y { ... } sure looks a lot more attractive and sensible to me, and I agree with all the arguments in favor of it so far. In particular: * No "look here, then look there" connection between (possibly) widely separated items. * Simple to add or remove/comment-out individual stream/item(s) pairs without having to "count" what are essentially positional parameters to make sure you haven't mis-mapped anything in the process. * More familiar use of the semicolon (IMO) -John