note fizbin Maybe it's just that I was a math major, or got too close to those whacky Haskell nuts, but <c>map</c> has always seemed a very natural metaphor for me. (It's the natural extension of a function on a space A to the space Aⁿ)<p> However, this (map is natural instead of foreach) is only true when the expression inside the map isn't itself accumulating side-effects; e.g. the following useage of <c>map</c> doesn't seem natural: <code> my $i=0; map {$keywordhash{$_}=(++$i);} @keywords; </code> However, this useage seems quite natural: <code> %keywordhash = map {$_ => 1} @keywords; </code> I guess you could also distinguish these two cases by noting that one calls map in void context whereas the other does not; while that's true, I think I'd still prefer <code> do {$keywordhash{$_}=(++$i);} for @keywords; </code> over: <code> %keywordhash = map { $_ => ++$i } @keywords; </code> Even though I like <c>map</c>, because I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of depending on a certain execution order for <c>map</c>, even though I know it has one. When I'm thinking in a linear, this-gets-executed-then-this mode, <c>map</c> rarely makes sense. <c>map</c> does however make sense as a higher-order function, and when I'm thinking like that it's quite natural.<p> <small>(Of course, all style niceties get completely discarded inside JAPHs)</small> <!-- Node text goes above. Div tags should contain sig only --> <div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-246930"> --<br> <code>@/=map{[/./g]}qw/.h_nJ Xapou cets krht ele_ r_ra/; map{y/X_/\n /;print}map{pop@$_}@/for@/</code> </div></div> 485945 485950