Re: for ( ; ; ) vs for ( .. )

Actually, why not:

for (@ARGV) { .. }
[download]

-- 
Joost       downtime n. The period during which a system
            is error-free and immune from user input.
[download]

Comment on Re: for ( ; ; ) vs for ( .. ) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re2: for ( ; ; ) vs for ( .. ) by Albannach (Monsignor) on May 23, 2002 at 17:18 UTC
Perhaps because its just not the same thing? Your's sets `$_` to the elements of the array, while Popcorn Dave's sets `$_` to one more than the indices of the array (which probably isn't the desired result). As broquaint suggests, I tend to use the `for(0..$#ARGV)` version if I happen to need the indices. -- I'd like to be able to assign to an luser	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Re: for ( ; ; ) vs for ( .. ) by Popcorn Dave (Abbot) on May 23, 2002 at 18:01 UTC
In the original code, the first argument was an option, the rest were files, so that wouldn't have worked in this particular instance. Some people fall from grace. I prefer a running start...	[reply]