The following code illustrates:

my %hash = (
    'foo' => 1,
    'bar' => 2,
    'baz' => 3,
);

OUTER_LOOP: foreach my $item qw(this that the_other)
{
    print "$item:\n";
    # keys %hash;  # this resets the iterator
    while (my ($key, $value) = each %hash)
    {
        print "  $key => $value\n";
        if ($item eq 'that' && $key eq 'baz')
        {
            print "bailing out!\n";
            next OUTER_LOOP;
        }
    }
}
[download]

When I run this, I get:

this:
  foo => 1
  baz => 3
  bar => 2
that:
  foo => 1
  baz => 3
bailing out!
the_other:
  bar => 2
[download]

As you can see, when I bail out, the iteration has not completed, and the next call to each() gets me the next element in the HASH, rather than starting over again, which is What I Want.

The keys() docs states:

As a side effect, it resets HASH's iterator.

So.... if you uncomment that # keys %hash; line in my program, then you get the following:

this:
  foo => 1
  baz => 3
  bar => 2
that:
  foo => 1
  baz => 3
bailing out!
the_other:
  foo => 1
  baz => 3
  bar => 2
[download]

...which is More Like It.

So... my question (yes, there is a question buried down here...) is this:

Is this an idiom that I just haven't seen, whereby you put a call to keys() before your calls to each(), when you have this kind of situation? The wording of the keys() doc describing this behavior as a 'side effect' doesn't warm my heart, and leads me to believe it might be leading my down the dark road of Obfuscated Code... Is there another, well-accepted way to accomplish this? Also bear in mind that my real code doesn't resemble this contrived example, and I have calls to each() in other functions which will need the call to keys() in order to work correctly...

What say my fellow monks?

--
3dan