Re^3: given-when last time through loop?

I've now submitted this patch to the perl 5 porters, in the hope that it's a bit clearer:

diff --git a/pod/perlsyn.pod b/pod/perlsyn.pod
index d5fc4a7..4e1bc0a 100644
--- a/pod/perlsyn.pod
+++ b/pod/perlsyn.pod
@@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ string occurs in an array:
     }
     print "\@array contains $count copies of 'foo'\n";
 
-On exit from the C<when> block, there is an implicit C<next>.
+At the end of all C<when> blocks, there is an implicit C<next>.
 You can override that with an explicit C<last> if you're only
 interested in the first match.
[download]

So far I've found the porters very cooperative when it comes to doc patches, and I want to encourage everybody to submit patches when they find something that can be improved in the docs.

Perl 6 - links to (nearly) everything that is Perl 6.

Comment on Re^3: given-when last time through loop? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: given-when last time through loop? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 19, 2009 at 15:36 UTC
That's wrong. It should be "At the end of every C<when> block"	[reply]
Re^4: given-when last time through loop? by 7stud (Deacon) on Nov 19, 2009 at 15:36 UTC
Forgive me for criticizing, but I don't think that highlights the change that occurs. Now the docs will have two contradictory statements: one statement will say there are implicit breaks, and this new statement will say there are implicit nexts. I think some readers may get confused and believe that one of them is a typo. I think, something like the following would highlight that a change occurs from implict breaks to implicit nexts: Inside a for-loop, a when block ends with an implicit next rather than an implicit break.	[reply]
Re^5: given-when last time through loop? by moritz (Cardinal) on Nov 19, 2009 at 15:57 UTC
You're right. You should reply to my p5p mail with a better patch.	[reply]
Re^6: given-when last time through loop? by 7stud (Deacon) on Nov 20, 2009 at 13:23 UTC
I spent two hours over there trying to retrieve your message and failed. I won't ever being going back there again. Those newsgroups are too arcane and unusable as far as I'm concerned.	[reply]