N
Nick Wedd
szr <[email protected]> said:The real point of my post was to followup your conclusion that when you
ran the OP's code, you got 000, while he got 111, and I just wanted to
show how the OP might have arrived there.
OP here: you are right.
My code was
my $i;
for ( $i=0 , $i<10 , $i++ ) { print $i; }
but I originally gave it, incorrectly, as
for ( my $i=0 , $i<10 , $i++ ) { print $i; }
not realising, at the time, that it made a difference.
Thanks to you all, I have learned things from this thread.
Suspected what? That typos are made? It's just lazy typing on my part,
which is quite common for anyone having spent enough time in the USA - I
would largely blame TV and Hollywood and even Radio, given that many of
these bad grammatical habits tend to come from sources such as these.
I don't think that the USA or TV should be blamed. Film and radio,
possibly. At school in England, before TVs were commonplace, "would of"
was frequently corrected by our English teachers.
Nick