On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:11:28 +0100, John McNamara wrote:
> foreach $item (@array) {
> print $item, " is at index ", $#, "\n";
> }
Maybe I'm a little late... But I just thought how neat it would be if
this would also extend to map() and grep().
Remember, officially the processing
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:21:26 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>One could argue that do{} should take return so it might have a value,
>but this will definitely annoy the C programmers.
So what.
"Annoying" would be to have a situation that is *less* powerful in Perl
than in C, not *more*.
Oh, and
Likely this should be an RFC. I'm too lazy to write it in that format
right now, but I want to send this thing out before it slips my mind
again. Somebody else may pick it up, if he or she wants it. If not, I'll
eventually may have to do it myself.
The articial distinction between
do BLO
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 22:50:59 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>They represent the -entire- future history of the program.
The "future history" doesn't exist just yet. All you can do is save the
entire current state of the program, so you can redo everything from
this point on, later, over and over ag
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:49:13 -0400, John Tobey wrote:
>As has been mentioned on a nearby subthread, we're probably just going
>to store the function call stack, not top-level variables or code.
That doesn't sound useful, at all.
For example:
sub foo {
my($x, $y) = @_;
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 17:13:57 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>it is a language issue that a
>signal cannot be delivered in the middle of a s///. in perl5 that can
>happen, in perl6 that cannot. that is a language issue and it brings op
>codes and perl operators into the picture.
Whatever. I am subscrib
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:45:28 -0400, John Tobey wrote:
>But the above code would be possible if get_submission stored the
>current continuation in a database before returning to the web server
>loop. The page handler could associate the next request with the
>continuation and simply jump back into
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:31:24 -0400, John Tobey wrote:
>A continuation is
>(abstractly) a copy of the stack. It's the reverse of eval (or, in C,
>setjmp) in that it lets you back out of a stack frame and later come
>back to continue it, possibly many times.
What's the difference with coroutines?
