in reply to Re^3: Ways to control a map() operation
in thread Ways to control a map() operation
Oh yes, you can. But you will not only leave the eval but the loop around it, too. If there is no loop around that eval, you'll die—just like your code demonstrated.
No. You don't leave the eval, you just evaluate a last that will make you leave the loop.
even if the code in my previous post had died in the eval{}, the loop would have continued and the output would have been 123
Of course, but it will not die in the eval, because eval { last; } is like saying last; -- i.e: you're just evaluating the code
eval { bleh(); } is really like saying just bleh(); so your code is simply:
for (1) { last; }
Otherwise, if it already exits the eval block, why does it exit the loop too?
so just like saying last; outside a loop will die, saying it inside an eval that is outside a loop will die too. It will exit the eval, but just because it died, not because it skipped the block.
--
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^5: Ways to control a map() operation
by betterworld (Curate) on Jul 16, 2006 at 11:56 UTC | |
by Leviathan (Scribe) on Jul 16, 2006 at 12:19 UTC | |
by betterworld (Curate) on Jul 16, 2006 at 14:57 UTC | |
by Leviathan (Scribe) on Jul 16, 2006 at 16:12 UTC |