Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2013
On Jul 25, 2013, at 3:34 PM, David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> wrote:
> That's different than what you said.
Yeah, but you and everyone else should know what I *mean* no matter what I *say*. :-P
> "the catch block should not do
> conditional execution" versus "the catch block shouldn't do
> conditional execution in the first draft". For prototyping, fine,
> but I'd be cautious actually adding an experiment for which we might
> change the syntax later. I wouldn't necessarily want to wind up with
> "catch" and "catchif" just because "catch" was introduced first
> without any conditionality.
Yeah. My thought, however, is just to KISS.
>>> How about using a non-argument lexical like "for" blocks:
>>>
>>> for my $foo ( list() ) { ... }
>>
>> IIRC, Chip apologized for this syntax, because it’s declared outside the block yet lexically defined inside the block. Is it really something we want to spread?
>
> It works that way for "while" and "if" and "elseif", too, so at this
> point, I think that's a pretty well-understood, commonly-used Perl 5
> way to do things.
It is? This dies with a syntax error:
if my $f (1) {
$f = 'foo';
say $f;
}
syntax error at try line 7, near "if my "
This works, of course:
if (my $f = 1) {
say $f;
}
Best,
David
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next