Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2012
On Sat Nov 24 07:03:37 2012, alh wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Father Chrysostomos via RT < > perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > > > On Sat Sep 29 19:08:16 2012, jkeenan wrote: > > > On Fri Oct 15 09:32:02 2004, schwern wrote: > > > > On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 22:47:35 +0100, Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure how this can be construed as a bug. In the general > > > > > case I'd expect 'a'..'zzzzzzz' to generate a large list, since P5 > > > doesn't > > > > > have P6's lazy lists. It just so happens that C<for (X..Y)> is > > > > > special-cased, but I don't see why that should lead to a general > > > > > expcatation of lazy-listness? > > > > > > > > I have high expectations. > > > > > > > > Call it a feature request if it makes you feel better. I reported it > > > > so its in the tracking system if someone wants to take a crack at it. > > > > > > > > > > Schwern, > > > > > > Is this still on your wishlist? > > > > It’s on *mine*. > > > > Is there anything blocking this from happening, or just the usual (time, > effort, tuits)? The usual, plus lack of inspiration. > > Is there any other case besides for/foreach that 'a..z' should iterate on > the fly rather than immediately generate a list in memory? I hadn’t thought of that, but if it could iterate on the fly in more places it would allow for more idiomatic code. -- Father Chrysostomos --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=30123Thread Previous | Thread Next