Von: Thomas Wittek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's, well, elegant! Yes.
Because and but it's tricky.
Nothing where I'd say wow, thats an easy solution to my problem!.
It's a bit complicated, because you have to understand and combine
several concepts. That's elegant. But not easy, I think.
I
herbert breunung wrote:
Von: Thomas Wittek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's, well, elegant! Yes.
Because and but it's tricky.
Nothing where I'd say wow, thats an easy solution to my problem!.
It's a bit complicated, because you have to understand and combine
several concepts. That's elegant. But
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Seconded. I would favor allowing an else block to be attached
following any loop block, with the semantics being that the else block
only gets triggered if the loop block doesn't run at least once. I'd
do this instead of a block trait (such as FIRST or LAST) because of
the
Darren Duncan schrieb:
At 11:17 PM +0100 3/3/07, Thomas Wittek wrote:
Larry Wall:
: if ($item = 'foobar') {
== of course ;)
If you actually wrote that, then you'll always find that the first
item has the value 'foobar'. :)
Care to try a third time?
I don't think the
On 3 Mar 2007, at 00:39, Thomas Wittek wrote:
I'd like the For::Else behaviour more. Especially as I remember
numerous
times writing an if clause to check if a list is empty before
processing it.
That's crazy. If the list is empty foreach still does the right thing
- there's no benefit in
I vote against this proposal.
More exceptional rules in a language are bad in itself.
Those exceptions force people to more to learn more stuff
and lead to confusion for those who don't know every detail
of this language. So, there should be an important reason
for that or it's a silly idea.
What about this?
given @foo {
for $_ - $x { ... }
when .empty { ... }
}
You can reverse the order if you want:
given @foo {
when .empty { ... }
for $_ - $x { ... }
}
I don't like C$_, but I can't think of a way to get rid of it.
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL
Daniel Brockman wrote:
What about this?
given @foo {
for $_ - $x { ... }
when .empty { ... }
}
You can reverse the order if you want:
given @foo {
when .empty { ... }
for $_ - $x { ... }
}
Actually, you'd be better off using the second order; the when
Andy Armstrong writes:
On 3 Mar 2007, at 00:39, Thomas Wittek wrote:
I'd like the For::Else behaviour more. Especially as I remember
numerous times writing an if clause to check if a list is empty
before processing it.
That's crazy. If the list is empty foreach still does the right
Steve Lukas schrieb:
More exceptional rules in a language are bad in itself.
Those exceptions force people to more to learn more stuff
I guess that most people would understand the for/empty(/start/end) code
without having ever written any line of Perl.
They won't understand first/Any/gather
Steve Lukas writes:
On the other hand, there is no important reason for it because C
for @rray - $el {}
if ! @rray {}
should work. It's short and easy to understand.
But it involves repeating C@rray -- which for more complex expressions
(results from function calls, delving deep into
On Mar 04 2007, Smylers wrote:
for @invoice
{
.process;
} or fail 'No invoices to process';
If that actually works then I'm happy.
--
Rick Delaney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rick Delaney wrote:
Smylers wrote:
for @invoice
{
.process;
} or fail 'No invoices to process';
If that actually works then I'm happy.
It's dependent on .process not returning a false on the final iteration.
--
Jonathan Dataweaver Lang
The text of S02, S03, and S04 still contain references to the
now-defunct statement_modifier grammatical category.
Also, what's the reasoning behind specifically disallowing _all_
statement modifiers to do blocks (as opposed to forbidding just
looping statement modifiers)? Is this legacy from
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:37:34PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Rick Delaney wrote:
: Smylers wrote:
:for @invoice
:{
: .process;
:} or fail 'No invoices to process';
:
: If that actually works then I'm happy.
:
: It's dependent on .process not returning a false on the final
AFAICT, there's nothing in the documentation to explain how one would
define a statement or operator with syntax along the lines of if ...
else ... or ... ?? ... :: ... Admittedly, the only cases I know of
where this is still an issue are the two listed above: for statements,
all other perl 5
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:37:34PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Rick Delaney wrote:
: Smylers wrote:
:for @invoice
:{
: .process;
:} or fail 'No invoices to process';
:
: If that actually works then I'm happy.
:
: It's dependent on .process not returning a
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:56:16PM +1030, Tom Lanyon wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:37:34PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: : Rick Delaney wrote:
: : Smylers wrote:
: :for @invoice
: :{
: : .process;
: :} or fail 'No invoices to process';
: :
: : If that
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:55:28PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: The text of S02, S03, and S04 still contain references to the
: now-defunct statement_modifier grammatical category.
Yes, there are several similar issues that need to be cleared up
as soon as
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:25:31PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: AFAICT, there's nothing in the documentation to explain how one would
: define a statement or operator with syntax along the lines of if ...
: else ... or ... ?? ... :: ... Admittedly, the only cases I know of
: where this is still
Larry Wall wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: : Finally: when used as a statement modifier, is given considered to
: : be conditional or looping? (Gut instinct: conditional.)
:
: Why does it have to be one or the other? It's just a topicalizer.
:
: One implication of replacing
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 04:13:16PM +1030, Tom Lanyon wrote:
: Sounds like the following will work, but it doesn't seem 'nice'.
:
: for @invoice
: {
: .process;
: 1;
: } or fail 'No invoices to process';
Still think if there's no invoices it logically should be tested first.
If you don't want
Larry Wall wrote:
Still think if there's no invoices it logically should be tested first.
If you don't want to repeat mentioning the array, how 'bout:
@invoice or fail 'No invoices to process'
== for @() {
.process
}
or equivalently
@invoice or fail 'No invoices to
23 matches
Mail list logo
