On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:31:50AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> If we make zip return a list of tuples rather than an interleaved
> list, we could eliminate the final 1/3 of those errors above using the
> typechecker. That would make the for look like this:
>
> for @a Y @b -> ($a, $b) {...}
I like it (I think). I'm not sure about the syntax though. Is this one
of those places where round brackets are equivalent to square brackets?
I.e., would this be the same:
for @a ¥ @b -> [$a,$b] { ... }
?
Also, it seems like this syntax would almost always require the brackets
to be correct. Most of the time people will see and expect for loops
that look like this:
for MUMBLE -> $a, $b { ... }
Except now they've probably got a semantic error when MUMBLE contains ¥
or is prefixed by zip. This type of error mayn't be so easy to detect
depending on what they're mumbling about.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
