--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:39:56AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
> : On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
> :
> : > if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something
> new
> : > instead?
> :
> : A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
> :
> : print,next if /stgh/;
> :
> : kinda syntax too, and I, for one, will regret not having it
> anymore, I
> : wonder wether something vaguely like the following example could
> (be made
> : to) work:
> :
> : print.then{next} if /stgh/;
>
> That's unnecessary--the comma still works perfectly fine for this,
> since comma still evaluates its arguments left-to-right. The *only*
> difference about comma is what it returns in scalar context. Most
> uses of the so-called C-style comma (including this one) are
> actually in void context, and in that case whether the return value
> is a list or the final value Doesn't Really Matter.
Will there be a statement modifier version of C<when>?
print, next when /stgh/;
Can there reasonably be block-postfix modifiers?
{ print; next; } if|when /stgh/;
=Austin
