Austin Hastings writes:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Control flow variables
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > Given that we've introduced the concept of "if" having a return status:
> > >
> > > my $result = if ($a) { $a } else { $b };
> > >
> >
> > Would that then imply that
> >
> > sub blah {
> > ... # 1
> > return if $a; # 2
> > ... # 3
> > }
> >
> > ...would return $a if $a was true, and fall through to (3) if it was
> > false?
> >
>
> It sure should, provided there were a correct context waiting, which would
> quite nicely address another WIBNI thread a couple of months back about a
> quick return under those conditions.
I.... don't think so. I say that all the time to mean precisely:
if $a { return }
And I don't think people are ready to give that up.
In particular, if we kept our bottom-up parser around, this particular
construct would cause an infinite-lookahead problem. So for ambiguity's
sake, C<if $a> should not be a valid term without a block following.
Luke
