Re^3: why does Perl eval have a strange terminator?

I suppose I didn't understand that a simple statement can be, the same time BE a compound statement

Something is either a simple statement or a compound statement, not both.

But one can include the other.

eval { for (1..2) { f(); } }; is a simple statement.
for (1..2) { f(); } is a compound statement.
f(); is a simple statement.

And eval is neither a simple nor a compound statement. As I've already said, eval is an operator (like +, and and time), not a type of statement.

Operators can include blocks and thus statements:

do
eval
map
grep
sort
print (e.g. print { ; $fh } $_)
say
Subs calls to subs with the & prototype
Indirect method call (e.g. new { ; "Class" })
Replacement "expression" of s///e
Circumfix derefs (e.g. ${ ; \$_ })
(?{ }) in regex patterns
(??{ }) in regex patterns

Comment on Re^3: why does Perl eval have a strange terminator? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: why does Perl eval have a strange terminator? by perlfan (Parson) on Jun 24, 2022 at 20:11 UTC
Try::Tiny requires a `;`, and if you investigate why it is because it is implemented using prototypes. `sub try (&;@) { ... sub catch (&;@) { ... sub finally (&;@) { ...` [download] I am not suggesting "eval BLOCK" is implemented using prototypes, but one could implement their own that would literally become a drop-in replacement (since the `;` is likey already there. FWIW, `(&;@)` means the BLOCK param is coerced into a coderef, then optionally (after that `;`), which allows something like the: `try { } catch { } finally { };` [download] So now the POD seems to make a little more sense.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: why does Perl eval have a strange terminator?
by perlfan (Parson) on Jun 24, 2022 at 20:11 UTC

Try::Tiny

;

prototypes

sub try (&;@) { ...
sub catch (&;@) { ...
sub finally (&;@) { ...
[download]

eval

;

(&;@)

that

;

try {

}
catch {

}
finally {

};
[download]

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]