good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW |
|
PerlMonks |
Re: next in a post-fixed forby diotalevi (Canon) |
on Jul 06, 2007 at 18:37 UTC ( [id://625327]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I had two objections. First, I was mapping my concept blockless of postfix conditional onto postfix loops. Postfix loops' implementation is to create a block context. This was contrary to my experience with conditionals and I had to peek at some perlguts to realize this. My other concern was the debugging tools built into perl tell me that the next() was a static "goto" into a nonsensical location and was equivalent to not executing the next at all. It turns out the static "goto" information built into next is not used - it does its "goto" behind the scenes and in a place the debugging tools know nothing of. This exposes two perl bugs. One in the core is to populate this nonsensical op_next data and the other is in B::Concise where it reports the nonsense data. Here's a simpler implementation to show off the bug. push @out, $_ || next for @in;⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊
In Section
Obfuscated Code
|
|