NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/lang/perl/7759

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-11 | 1.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgi!wdl1!wdl39!mab
From: [e-mail] (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
Subject: Re: bug with "last"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:31:51 GMT
References: <cameron-930111155241-1-06364@fuligin> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Lines: 20

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Laurence J. Golding) writes:
>    ... If the LABEL is omitted, the loop control statement refers to
>    the innermost enclosing loop.
>Now, in your example, the "{last;}" certainly does not look like a loop,
>and the "for" certainly does look like the innermost enclosing loop.  So it
>appears that the book should read:
>    ... If the LABEL is ommitted, the loop control statement refers to
>    the innermost enclosing _block_.

This rule doesn't work because last ignores BLOCKS that are branches of
if statements and the BLOCK in a do {...} expression.  As the book and man
page say a unadorned BLOCK is equivalent to a do-it-once loop.  Now you
might get away with saying "the innermost BLOCK that is the body of a loop"
but that would get confused with my last does not work with do {...} while();
So, I guess the best thing is to just leave it alone.

--
Perl's Maternal Uncle
Mark Biggar
[e-mail]