Re^4: "when" and replacements

>I kind of like the idea that since one can use when clauses in a for, given doesn't alias. If you want aliases, write for; otherwise, write given.

Yeah sounds like perfect orthogonal design. Though one has to keep in mind that leaving the block demands different statements.

use feature qw(switch);
 
given (1) {
  print;
  break;
  print
}
 
for (1) {
  print;
  last;
  print
}
[download]

Cheers Rolf

UPDATE:

confusingly this works well:

$\="\n";
 
for ("012") {
  if   (/0/) {print "0 matched"};   # prints 0
  when (/1/) {print "1 matched"};   # prints 1
  when (/2/) {print "2 matched"};   # nix
  if   (/3/) {print "3 matched"};   # nada
}
[download]

but the perlsyn says Every "when" block is implicitly ended with a "break".

Consequently "break" should also leave loop-blocks, or the documentation should be updated.

IMHO break is needless and should be abandoned in favor of last. (which linguistically still makes sense)

Comment on Re^4: "when" and replacements Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: "when" and replacements by JavaFan (Canon) on May 07, 2011 at 12:01 UTC
IMHO break is needless and should be abandoned in favor of last. (which linguistically still makes sense) But `break` doesn't act as `last`. It acts as `next`. But using `next` in a `given/when` to end the `given` would be odd - I'd expect `next` to act as `continue` does now.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: "when" and replacements by LanX (Saint) on May 07, 2011 at 12:11 UTC
> It acts as next. good catch! :) > But using `next` in a `given/when` to end the `given` would be odd Yes and no. Your implying that `last` (which doesn't look odd) couldn't be used because `next` is possible. There are many grammatically correct combinations in perl that look odd, so nobody uses them. Cheers Rolf UPDATE: consequently full orthogonality would imply allowing multiple args in `given(LIST)`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: "when" and replacements by JavaFan (Canon) on May 07, 2011 at 13:57 UTC
Your implying that last (which doesn't look odd) couldn't be used because next is possible. So, then the rule would be "when using `when`, there is an implied `last` when used inside a `given`, but there's an implied `next` when used inside a `for`"? Not sure if that's an improvement. consequently full orthogonality would imply allowing multiple args in given(LIST) Uhm, do realize that `given(EXPR)` evaluates `EXPR` in scalar context, while `for(EXPR)` evaluates in `EXPR` in list context. As such, `given(LIST)` isn't meaningful. Changing the context means that you break `given(@ARRAY)`. If you want `given` to behave exactly as `for`, write `for`. I rather have `given` to be different from `for`, then `given` to be another alias for `for/foreach`.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^8: "when" and replacements by LanX (Saint) on May 07, 2011 at 14:28 UTC