On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 13:19, Larry Wall wrote:
> Aaron Sherman writes:
> : Ok, so am I to take it that you could say:
> :
> : FOO: for @x {
> : BAR: for @y {
> : print $FOO::_;
> : }
> : }
>
> Er, I don't think so.
>
> : Or is OUTER a special-case label?
>
> It's a special case like M
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 12:52, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:59:35AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> >
> > I should update y'all to my current thinking, which is that $_ is
> > always identical to the current topic, even if the topic is aliased to
> > some other variable. To get at
From: Allison Randal
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
> >
> > Why does C's EXPR pay attention to the topicalizer
> > regardless of associated variable?
> >
> > Why introduce the special case?
>
> Why? Because it's oh-so dwim. Think about it, if you've just typed a
>
> given $x { ...
> or
>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:32:24AM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
> Why does C's EXPR pay attention to the topicalizer regardless of
> associated variable?
>
> Why introduce the special case? Especially when consistency and
> simplification seem to be a strong undercurrent in Perl6? I'm curious
--- Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of which, you forgot your trailing semicolon
> for the C expression's final closure/block.
I'll claim that when, like if, shouldn't need one. (I'd also normally
use multiple lines, but I'm trying to conserve newlines... :-)
> Why does C'
From: Garrett Goebel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Speaking of which, you forgot your trailing semicolon for the
> C expression's final closure/block.
s/expression/statement/
