Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 1999
Re: loopiness of blocks
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Joshua N Pritikin
Date:
October 4, 1999 12:24
Subject:
Re: loopiness of blocks
Message ID:
19991004152446.C20034@eq1062.wks.na.deuba.com
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 01:44:05PM -0400, ilya@math.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 01:24:05PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > I am watching this thread and I am somewhat baffled by Ilya's direction
> > of argument. Usually I like Ilya's ideas but I've not found the
> > loopiness of blocks difficult to understand.
>
> Then you do not follow. It is *non-loopiness* which is difficult to
> understand. Some BLOCKs do not loop. Which BLOCKs loop and which do
> not is
>
> a) not documented or documented wrongly;
> b) as experiments show, this does not follow any simple semantic.
I do not argue your points (a) and (b). I am simply saying that I have
rarely, if ever, had difficulty predicting the effect of last/next/redo.
I repeat, some of your ideas are very good. I like overloading. I like
the new REx features. IMHO, this discussion of (non) loop BLOCKs pales
in comparison.
--
"Jokes are not funny; doubt is funny."
via, but not speaking for Deutsche Bank
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next