Re^4: What training do YOU need?

Having said that in the time ive been using perl I think ive needed the construct a mere handful of times.

To reinforce the point.. I've literally never used it. There was not a single instance I wasn't equally or better served with the other constructs.

And to be honest, considering the number of cases I advised people not to use for(;;) for whatever they were using it for, and the number of times I restructured loops in others' code to not use it, if it was to disappear from the language I wouldn't shed a tear. Actually, scratch that, I'd be cheering.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^4: What training do YOU need?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^4: What training do YOU need? by demerphq (Chancellor) on Oct 22, 2002 at 13:47 UTC
ive needed the construct For the record I didn't mean `for (;;)` but rather the `while () {} continue {}` construct which once or twice ive found has come in useful. For instance `while (<$fh>) { s/foo/bar/ and next; s/yada/yada/ and next; #lots more of the same } continue { print $_; }` [download] Which _can_ be written without the continue, but when the innerds get a bit complex the continue can result in simpler code. (Sorry, but I had to make it clear ive never written a perl script with `for (;;)` in it ;-) Actually, scratch that, I'd be cheering. No disagreement there... It was that construct that seriously put me off of C when I first encountered it. In fact I still haven't quite got over the trauma of having to use it. :-) Now, the question is will Perl 6 have the obscene construct in it? My guess is probably... sigh --- demerphq my friends call me, usually because I'm late....	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: What training do YOU need? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Oct 22, 2002 at 15:30 UTC
Yes, but it will be called `loop`. See the relevant part of Apocalypse 4. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]


Keep It Simple, Stupid
	PerlMonks