Random Perl 6 syntax rant
abw at wardley.org
Wed Apr 2 08:33:08 BST 2008
Jonathan Rockway wrote:
> How would you distinguish between "give me a lazy iterator over each line"
> and "suck everything into an array, then iterate over that"?
I can't think of a case where I would want to differentiate. In a for loop,
a lazy iterator works just fine (as per the Perl default). If I want to read
the lines into an array first (or as a side effect) then I would write that
explicitly, perhaps using a .lines method.
for $item in <IN> # lazy iterator over input lines
for $item IN <IN.lines> # pre-fetch input lines
for $item IN <@list = IN.lines> # so I can check @list.size, for example
This is assuming that <> is required to indicate "I would like to iterate
over this". But there's no reason (that I can think of OTOH) why IN couldn't
be a stream object which supports an iterator interface directly. So you
wouldn't need to add <> at all:
for $item in IN # IN isa iterator / does iteration
for $item in IN.lines # IN.lines returns a list
> Yes, in most cases you will want an iterator... but wouldn't it be
> confusing for some things to act like iterators and others lists (in the
> ... -> context)? Yes, it would be :P
I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at. The iterator over a list is
a different thing from the list that it's iterating over. So no, there
wouldn't be any confusion because they're different things.
This is the approach used in TT. Every FOREACH loop has an iterator. If
you don't pass it an iterator (i.e. you specify a list) then it'll create one
FOREACH item IN an_iterator # yay! we got an iterator
FOREACH item IN a_list # creates an iterator for a_list
Either way, you always have an iterator for the loop, regardless of what the
original data source is.
More information about the london.pm