in reply to Re^2: Short-circuiting a map list. (This works! But ...)
in thread Short-circuiting a map list.

Okay. If what you are telling me is that I am utilising unspecified behaviour, then how about this version which produces identical output but, as far as I can tell, does nothing that is either prohibited or unspecified? 

sub a{
    my $x = shift;

    return do{
        {
            print 'a';
            map {
                print 'b';
                last if $_ == $x;
                $_;
            } @_;
            print 'c';
        }
    };
}

my @data = 0 .. 9;

print for a( 5, @data );

[download]

Does that mean uncovered an obscure bug?

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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Short-circuiting a map list. (This works! But ...)
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 08, 2011 at 15:33 UTC

    Does that mean uncovered an obscure bug?

    Probability is high :)

    do does say "do BLOCK" does *not* count as a loop, so the loop control statements "next", "last", or "redo" cannot be used to leave or restart the block. See perlsyn for alternative strategies.

[reply]
      do does say "do BLOCK" does *not* count as a loop,

      I don't think that is relevant as it is the anonymous block inside the do block that is the target of the last?

      I can also get the same output with the same weirdness whilst avoiding the do block:

      sub b{
    my $x = shift;

    goto sub {
        {
            print 'ba';
            map {
                print 'bb';
                last if $_ == $x;
                $_;
            } @_;
            print 'bc';
        }
    };
}

my @data = 0 .. 9;

print for b( 5, @data );

      [download]

      I am completely at a loss to explain the return values being stacked on top of the passes values?

      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]

        I don't think that is relevant as it is the anonymous block inside the do block that is the target of the last?

        I am completely at a loss to explain the return values being stacked on top of the passes values?

        Me too , except the aforementioned warning regarding unspecified behavior with loop control structure -- if you can last it, its a loop

[reply]
Re^4: Short-circuiting a map list. (This works! But ...)
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 08, 2011 at 18:15 UTC
    The behaviour is just as unspecified for a bare loop ({ ... }) as it is for a while loop (while (...) { ... }).
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      If the last statement is a loop control structure like a foreach or a while , the returned value is unspecified.

      But the bare block is not the last statement.

      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]
        It's not the last statement of the sub, but it is the last statement of the do. What do you think do returns? The value to which the loop evaluates, which isn't defined.
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom