As it allows you to change the values of the array with foreach loop, which is faster than others (for or while).
Huh?!? Maybe I misunderstood the sense of your words, but C<for> and C<foreach> are just synonims. Or were you referring to C-style C<for>'s (C<while>'s in disguise)?!?
| [reply] |
According to the people "who wrote the book on Perl" {grin}, there is indeed a "for" loop (what you would call "C style"), and a "foreach" loop (stolen mostly from C-shell). Even though the keywords of "for" and "foreach" are interchangeable, we call a foreach loop a foreach loop even when it's spelled "f-o-r".
| [reply] |
Indeed it's a matter of user interface[*]. While
foreach (my $i=0; i<10;$i++) { #...
does indeed work thus illustrating the point I was talking about, C<for> is IMHO more intuitively appropriate. OTOH many perl programmers, and I for one, always use C<for> instead of C<foreach> for the perlish form. Which is one of the reasons why Larry chose to only have C<for> and a separate keyword, namely C<loop> for C-style loops, in Perl6, that is.
[*]I'm thinking especially of that paragraph of Conways's in which he mentions another book on general UIs and talks about how if you have a door that must be pulled then you'd better put a handle on it and if must be pushed then something flat instead (sorry for the bad wording, could not come with anything better!) | [reply]
[d/l] |
Yup, i do call '($i=0;$i<$j;$i++) {}' a for loop and 'foreach (@list) {}' a foreach loop. I don't use 'for (@list) {}' inorder to avoid confusion like this :).
But thanks for merlyn for info on what others think.
| [reply] |