Austin Hastings writes:
> Before this gets simonized, let me add that this seems genuinely
> useful: It provides a way of constructing a loop in a dimension that
> is not really accessible, except via recursion.
>
> Luke: Would that have to be
>
> for outer([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ->Â @cp {...}
>
> ?
->Â @cp makes about as much sense as subÂ(@cp). C<outer> returns a
list of array references, right? So it binds each one to @cp (the right
of -> is a subroutine parameter list, remember?).
> > Supposing  had sufficiently low precedence. And supposing  were used
> > at all, something I'm not particuarly attached to happening.
>
> I'm opposed to it: bad huffman coding.
That's why it's a non-ascii operator. But I agree, there's really no
need for an operator here.
> > I believe it could be programmed lazily. Like this:
>
> > sub _outer_coro(*$first is context(Scalar),
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is context(Scalar))
> > is coroutine
> > {
> > if @rest {
> > _outer_coro [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > }
> > else {
> > yield $first;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > sub outer([EMAIL PROTECTED] is context(Scalar))
> > {
> > <_outer_coro([EMAIL PROTECTED])>
> > }
>
> I find this code utterly baffling. How does this yield 255.255.0.[0..2] ?
It doesn't. You probably noticed by my numerous replys fixing the
numerous bugs in that code.
Luke
