in reply to Re^3: eof not recognised when applying diamond operator to invocation arguments?
in thread eof not recognised when applying diamond operator to invocation arguments?

Style tips. With those changes your snippet becomes:
foreach my $file (@ARGV) { open (FILE, "<", $file) || die "could not open '$file': $!"; while (<FILE>) { print $_; } print "whatever you wanted to use as a separator $file\n"; }
Getting more contentious, if you spell "foreach" as "for", add the normal indentation and brace style, lexical filehandles, and convert the while into an inline form, you get the more idiomatic:
for my $file (@ARGV) { open (my $fh, "<", $file) || die "could not open '$file': $!"; print while <$fh>; print "whatever you wanted to use as a separator $file\n"; }

Edit: Argel is right. The for/foreach distinction belongs in the stylistic nitpicks, not in the more substantive section.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: eof not recognised when applying diamond operator to invocation arguments?
by Argel (Prior) on Jan 12, 2011 at 23:59 UTC
    Don't you think the "foreach" comment is nitpicking a bit? It's an alias to "for" and when performing the loop the the Perlish way the phrase "for each element" makes more sense than "for element". Meanwhile, when using it the repressed memory inducing, nightmarish C-style way, the phrase "for this series of numbers" is a better fit. In my experience, "foreach" is easier for people new to programming to grasp and it makes it easier to wean C-junkies off of the C-styled for loops.

    Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

      Why is it always C-style loops (usually used as counting loops) vs list iterator loops? Perl-style counting loops are always ignored. By your argument, one should use for for them. Others argue they are just optimisations of list iteration loops. It just goes to show how meaningless the choice of keyword is. In fact, you'll realise after a while that you never rely on the keyword anyway, so you should just use what's simpler ("for").

        Actually, I do use "for" for C-style iterations and "foreach" for the more Perlish iterator loops! I like to use what "feels" right -- typing four more letters isn't a big deal. And like I said, people just learning to program in my experience tend to "get it" sooner with "foreach". Quite frankly, I wish they were distinct so we could discourage "for" loops and encourage "foreach" loops without any ambiguity -- useful when dragging those kicking and screaming, die hard C coders into the world of Perl!!! :-)

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks