Luke Palmer <lrpalmer@[...].com>  writes:

>  On 6/7/05, Matt Fowles <ubermatt@[...].com> wrote:
> > On 6/7/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <iblech@[...].de> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >   sub foo (Code $code) {
> > >     my $return_to_caller = -> $ret { return $ret };
> > >
> > >     $code($return_to_caller);
> > >     return 23;
> > >   }
> > >
> > >   sub bar (Code $return) { $return(42) }
> > >
> > >   say foo &bar; # 42 or 23?
> > >
> > > I think it should output 42, as the return() in the pointy
> > > block $return_to_caller affects &foo, not the pointy block.
> > > To leave a pointy block, one would have to use leave(), right?
> > 
> > I don't like this because the function bar is getting oddly
> > prematurely halted. 
> 
>  Then let's put it this way:
> 
>     sub foo () {
>         for 0..10 { 
>             when 6 { return 42 }
>         }
>         return 26;
>     }
> 
>  And if that didn't do it, then let's write it equivalently as:
> 
>     sub foo () {
>         &map(-> $_ { return 42 }, 0..10);
>         return 26;
>     }
> 
>  Do you see why the return binds to the sub rather than the pointy now?
> 
>  Also, we're going to be avoiding the return continuation problem with:
> 
>     sub foo() { 
>         return -> { return 42 };
>     }
>     
>     my $code = foo();
>     say "Boo!";
>     $code();
> 
>  Says not:
> 
>     Boo
>     Boo
>     Boo
>     ...
> 
>  But:
> 
>     Boo
>     Can't return from subroutine that already returned at <eval> line 2.

My preference is for:

    Boo
    Boo
    Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.

Actually, my preference is for not writing such silly code in the first place,
but there you go.