«

Jürgen Exner <> wrote:

> Tore Aursand wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:12:54 -0800, Tony Walker wrote:
>>> I'm now trying
>>> for (@entry)
>>>
>> Use 'foreach';
>> foreach ( @array )
>
> What exactly would be the difference between 'for' and 'foreach'
> (besides the additional 4 letters)?

It's a bit more explicit about what it's doing? perlsyn gives
'readability' as the justification for the existence of 'foreach', but
that's arguable, and I don't really see the need for it. 'foreach' is
a bit of dead yeast left in the Perl beer, IMHO; forget the yeast and
enjoy the flavor.

--
David Wall

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:10:17 +0000, Jürgen Exner wrote:
>>> I'm now trying
>>> for (@entry)

>> Use 'foreach';
>> foreach ( @array )

> What exactly would be the difference between 'for' and 'foreach'
> (besides the additional 4 letters)?

I would say readability, plus that it simply works better than writing
'for (my $i = 0..@array)' (if you had bothered quoting the relevant text
from my post.


--
Tore Aursand <>

Tore Aursand <> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:10:17 +0000, Jürgen Exner wrote:
> >>> I'm now trying
> >>> for (@entry)
>
> >> Use 'foreach';
> >> foreach ( @array )
>
> > What exactly would be the difference between 'for' and 'foreach'
> > (besides the additional 4 letters)?
>
> I would say readability,

Debatable, but yes.

> plus that it simply works better than writing
> 'for (my $i = 0..@array)'

No. The problem there is nothing to do with for/foreach. foreach can
in every single case be replaced with for.

Ben

--
Like all men in Babylon I have been a proconsul; like all, a slave ... During
one lunar year, I have been declared invisible; I shrieked and was not heard,
I stole my bread and was not decapitated.
~ ~ Jorge Luis Borges, 'The Babylon Lottery'

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:23:24 +0000, Ben Morrow wrote:
>> plus that it simply works better than writing
>> 'for (my $i = 0..@array)'

> No. The problem there is nothing to do with for/foreach. foreach can
> in every single case be replaced with for.

I know that, but look at the actual code. Maybe I'm misunderstanding
something here, but have tried this?

my @array = qw( a b c d e f );
for ( my $i = 0 .. @array ) {
print $i . ' = ' . $array[ $i ] . "\n";
}

Doesn't look nice to me.


--
Tore Aursand <>

Tony Walker wrote:
> my $LINE = @entry[$i];
> if ($CUR =~/$LINE/){
> print $CUR;
> }

Consider "$CUR =~ /\Q$LINE\E/" here; if the text in $LINE contains any
regular expression meta-characters (like "."), your match may not work
the way you want it to.

--
Jeff Boes vox 269.226.9550 ext 24
Database Engineer fax 269.349.9076
Nexcerpt, Inc. http://www.nexcerpt.com
...Nexcerpt... Extend your Expertise

Jeff Boes <> wrote in message news:< ws.com>...
> Tony Walker wrote:
> > my $LINE = @entry[$i];
> > if ($CUR =~/$LINE/){
> > print $CUR;
> > }
>
> Consider "$CUR =~ /\Q$LINE\E/" here; if the text in $LINE contains any
> regular expression meta-characters (like "."), your match may not work
> the way you want it to.

Thanks for all the input Gentlemen. Since posting my rather 'useless'
error description I have cracked the problem and the script I
originally posted this message about is running nicely without
problems. Nice to have found such a rich source of information...

Tony

Tore Aursand <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:23:24 +0000, Ben Morrow wrote:
> >> plus that it simply works better than writing
> >> 'for (my $i = 0..@array)'
>
> > No. The problem there is nothing to do with for/foreach. foreach can
> > in every single case be replaced with for.
>
> I know that, but look at the actual code. Maybe I'm misunderstanding
> something here, but have tried this?
>
> my @array = qw( a b c d e f );
> for ( my $i = 0 .. @array ) {
> print $i . ' = ' . $array[ $i ] . "\n";
> }
>
> Doesn't look nice to me.

No, but it doesn't work with foreach either.

While "for" and "foreach" are really synonyms, there are still two
entirely different loop constructs they can *both* introduce. The
difference is in the syntax of what follows for/foreach.

Anno

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:51:27 +0000, Anno Siegel wrote:
>> my @array = qw( a b c d e f );
>> for ( my $i = 0 .. @array ) {
>> print $i . ' = ' . $array[ $i ] . "\n";
>> }
>>
>> Doesn't look nice to me.

> No, but it doesn't work with foreach either.

I never said that. I just said that one should use...

foreach ( @array ) {
...
}

....instead of the code above. I know that 'for' and 'foreach' do excactly
the same.


--
Tore Aursand <>

Tore Aursand <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:51:27 +0000, Anno Siegel wrote:
> >> my @array = qw( a b c d e f );
> >> for ( my $i = 0 .. @array ) {
> >> print $i . ' = ' . $array[ $i ] . "\n";
> >> }
> >>
> >> Doesn't look nice to me.
>
> > No, but it doesn't work with foreach either.
>
> I never said that. I just said that one should use...
>
> foreach ( @array ) {
> ...
> }

But the code above isn't just bad, or hard to read, it's *wrong*. It
doesn't loop over the array. Instead it assigns the result of "scalar
0 .. @array" to $i (once), assigns the result to $_, and executes the
loop body (once).

(Apart from that, you'd want $#array instead of @array, but that doesn't
matter anymore.)

Anno

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:37:27 +0000, Anno Siegel wrote:
> [...]
> But the code above isn't just bad, or hard to read, it's *wrong*.

Excactly my point.


--
Tore Aursand <>