Re: Foreach Loops

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Foreach Loops by cog (Parson) on Mar 15, 2005 at 19:11 UTC
And, of course, the previous line is available at `$arr[$x - 1]` (unless we're talking $x == 0)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Foreach Loops by Anonymous Monk on Mar 16, 2005 at 15:19 UTC
Well, if you consider arrays to be circular, if `$x == 0`, then `$arr[$x - 1]` is the last element. Which would be just right. Unfortunally, it doesn't work the way. `$arr[$#arr + 1]` isn't the same as `$arr[0]`.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: Foreach Loops by Anonymous Monk on Mar 16, 2005 at 15:16 UTC
You say that `for my $x (0 .. $#arr)` is "better" than `for (my $x = 0; $x < @arr; $x ++)`. Now, I don't care much what you find better, but since you have a preference that you find important enough to advocate, I'm interested in why you find your preference "better". It's even optimized to not create the list. Yeah, because it's special cased. The C-style loop doesn't create a list at all, and is even "optimized" in older versions of Perl.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Foreach Loops by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 16, 2005 at 15:46 UTC
I'm interested in why you find your preference "better". The OP asked for something Perl-ish, so anything more Perl-ish than the C-ish code he provided is better in this context. Since C doesn't have the `..` operator, this qualifies. I also think it's more readable. Instead of having to deal with three expressions, three operators and a keyword inside `for`'s parens, the solution I presented has one operator. The iterator's decleration is even sperated from the bounds for extra readability. Yeah, because it's special cased. The C-style loop doesn't create a list at all, and is even "optimized" in older versions of Perl. My point was that the performance isn't any worse than the C version, contrary to what I once thought, and contrary to what many probably think.	[reply] [d/l] [select]