Re^7: Why? (each...)

in reply to Re^6: Why? (each...)
in thread Why? (each...)

>The parens of foreach not even part of the expression, and the list is still created when you omit them.

say foreach "a", "b";

Well, you know that postfix-commands follow different syntax rules!

Cheers Rolf

Comment on Re^7: Why? (each...) Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Why? (each...) by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 13, 2011 at 00:13 UTC
My point is that the idea that parens create a list is flawed. How is that relevant?	[reply]
Re^9: Why? (each...) by Argel (Prior) on May 13, 2011 at 18:37 UTC
"Indicate" is not the same as "create" and I never said "create"!! And we were talking about in certain situations/context yet your examples are all over the map. We're clearly not on the same page. Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks	[reply]
Re^10: Why? (each...) by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 13, 2011 at 19:32 UTC
It's even more far fetch that they indicate a list, and I pointed this out too. For every example you gave where it does, I gave examples where parens didn't indicate a list (high false positive ratio), and examples where lists existed without parens (high false negative ratio). Parens are a low precision indicator of lists (not likely to be correct), and parens are a low recall indicator of lists (not likely to find instances of lists).	[reply]
Re^11: Why? (each...) by Argel (Prior) on May 14, 2011 at 00:12 UTC
Re^12: Why? (each...) by chromatic (Archbishop) on May 19, 2011 at 22:02 UTC
Re^12: Why? (each...) by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 14, 2011 at 00:19 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom