++. I do not deny that there are multiple of fully-functional ways around the issue, and seeing so many of the TIMTOWTDI is one of the many things that draws me to PM, even though the vast bulk of my programming is not in Perl. I was pointing this out as a reasonable circumstance in which one might expect the loop variable to persist. And, like morgon expressed, it is counter-intuitive to me that my $nCond; for $nCond (1 .. 10) and my $nCond; for($nCond=1; $nCond<=10; ++$nCond) would behave differently w/r/t localization of $nCond. But every language has it's own unique character, and that's fine.
If I needed this construct in Perl, I would have eventually settled either on my alternative or this more c-like one... But likely my own alternative: over the last couple years of regularly participating here, my mindset has changed from c-like for-loops to perlish ones, so the c-for idiom is no longer my first (or often even second) choice. And, once I was reminded of the auto-localization in foreach(), I probably would have assumed auto-localization in for(;;), and wouldn't've even tried it.
In reply to Re^4: loop surprise
by pryrt
in thread loop surprise
by morgon
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |