Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
wiggly at wiggly.org
Wed Oct 8 16:26:16 BST 2008
Andy Wardley wrote:
> Nigel Rantor wrote:
>> Let's take "~~" for example. It's arguably harder to type than "in".
>> And by that I mean for *me* it is harder to type.
> I agree. ~~ is particularly hard for me to type on keyboards that put
> it at
> the bottom left right next to the shift key (i.e. Macs). 'in' is much
> to type, and also much easier to read. Although ~~ is somewhat easier
> to read
> in my head, now that I know it's called "wiggly wiggly". ;-)
> As others have pointed out, '~~' isn't quite the same thing as 'in'. It
> be potentially confusing in this kind of situation:
> @foo ~~ @bar # arrays are identical
> @foo in @bar # not what it looks like!
Indeed. I missed that initially.
> However, I certainly would be in favour of having an extra 'in' keyword
> for those special cases where it does make sense. It would be nice if we
> could re-use it in for loops, too:
> print $x for $x in @y;
> I'm sure it'll be easy to add it in Perl6.
Well, I'm quite happy with "foreach [<var>] LIST"...but you're right,
it'll prolly be in P6.
More information about the london.pm