Re: •Re: Surpised by foreach iterator limitation

It's a consistent notion, but not always common-sense, as evidenced by your (thankfully categorically rare) post.

I am curious about the (thankfully categorically rare) portion of your comment. The impression it leaves me with is that you think this a bad idea. While I agree it's very rare and not very useful in day to day use, it fits with the DWIM expectation which in my mind would certainly not be a bad thing.

-Lee

"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."

Comment on Re: •Re: Surpised by foreach iterator limitation

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
•Re: Re: •Re: Surpised by foreach iterator limitation by merlyn (Sage) on Apr 08, 2003 at 04:37 UTC
Bah. I knew that was going to be misinterpreted, but I got lazy. What I'm saying is that most people don't seem to leap this direction, so we really don't see many posts wondering why it's only a simple scalar. I tell ya, with all the places I look, I don't see it being questioned very often. Maybe that's because we do a good job of describing it in the llama, so only non-llama-ites make that leap. {grin} -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.	[reply]
Re: •Re: Re: •Re: Surpised by foreach iterator limitation by shotgunefx (Parson) on Apr 08, 2003 at 04:49 UTC
Bah. I knew that was going to be misinterpreted, but I got lazy My initial impression was that it was a dig, but then I decided I wasn't sure what it meant. I agree it's a rare thing to do. I've coded Perl almost everyday single day since 98 and I just thought to try it now. -Lee "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."	[reply]