On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: > : Can there reasonably be block-postfix modifiers?
: > :
: > : { print; next; } if|when /stgh/;
: >
: > If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
: > declare that there can't be.
:
: Be as unreasonable as you want -- the grammar's open. :)
Darn it, when did that misfeature sneak in? :-)
: > You can always say:
: >
: > do { print; next; } if|when /stgh/;
: >
: > (It's still the case that do-while is specifically disallowed,
: > however.)
:
: What about C<loop>?
:
: do { print ; next } loop (; true ;);
I don't see much utility in that, and plenty of room for confusion.
Does the "next" apply to the statement modifier? How often do you
want to explain why
do { print $i } loop (my $i = 0; $i < 10; $i++);
doesn't work?
All leaving out the fact that it doesn't read like English, which is
a requirement for statement modifiers.
Of course, the grammar's open...
But let me put this on the record: I specifically disrecommend use of
grammar tweaks that will incite lynch mobs. You have been warned. :-)
Larry
