in reply to Re^2: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.
in thread Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.

I had to consider the vote for a few minutes.

The title is certainly odd (iterating over a single item?). On inspection, the question is not about the arrays, so the suggested title doesn't fit either.

So, in the end, I think a better title would be "Iterating over characters in a string". And then comes the question of whether it would be worth considering.

I probably would have said no, but given the evident confusion currently, it might actually be worth doing.

  • Comment on Re^3: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 09, 2010 at 16:50 UTC
    The title is certainly odd (iterating over a single item?).

    I guess we come from different backgrounds. I've never seen a string as a "single item".

    I can't think of any language that doesn't allow you to iterate over a string.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
      I can relate, but in Perl a string is a scalar.

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
[reply]

        And @a is an array. But you can still iterate over it!

        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion