Re: "a bit of sugar "(HOP)

I only see one definition of Iterator in your code - and it's outcommented. Essentially, "Iterator" is a noop, but because Perl allows you to leave off the 'sub' keyword if the first argument of a subroutine has prototype '&' (as here), the code is allowed to write:

    return Iterator {BLOCK}
[download]

instead of

    return sub {BLOCK}
[download]

Comment on Re: "a bit of sugar "(HOP) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: "a bit of sugar "(HOP) by Wiggins (Hermit) on Mar 13, 2009 at 18:15 UTC
Iterator appears twice. The first where you found it. The second is 6 lines below, in a "return Iterator { ..... } line that is the actual code reference of the iterator. This is the confusing part... It is always better to have seen your target for yourself, rather than depend upon someone else's description.	[reply]
Re^3: "a bit of sugar "(HOP) by tilly (Archbishop) on Mar 13, 2009 at 18:22 UTC
The syntactic sugar is in the fact that the & prototype allows you to write `return Iterator {...}` instead of `return Iterator sub {...}`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: "a bit of sugar "(HOP) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 13, 2009 at 18:33 UTC
Yes, `(&)` is syntactic sugar, but that doesn't explain `Iterator`. I see is as `return Iterator {...}` being semantic sugar for `return sub {...}`. It signals to the reader that the closure is an iterator.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: "a bit of sugar "(HOP) by hbm (Hermit) on Mar 13, 2009 at 18:41 UTC
Re^6: "a bit of sugar "(HOP) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 13, 2009 at 19:09 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^3: "a bit of sugar "(HOP) by JavaFan (Canon) on Mar 13, 2009 at 19:11 UTC
The string `Iterator` indeed appears twice. But an appearance isn't a definition. There's only one definition of `Iterator` in the code - and that's outcommented.	[reply]