G'day cavac,

"Your solution is probably a lot faster, ..."

I've always found for to be faster than map so I benchmarked. I ran the following with: 0 .. 5 (from the two nodes on which you commented); 0 .. 40 (the OP's original range); and, 0 .. 5000 (just to see if a large range made any significant different).

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use strict;
use warnings;

use Benchmark 'cmpthese';

cmpthese 0 => {
    with_for => \&with_for,
    with_map => \&with_map,
};

sub with_for {
    my @f;
    push @f, [$_+2, $_+1] for 0 .. 5;
}

sub with_map {
    my @f = map [$_+2, $_+1], 0 .. 5;
}
[download]

I ran each three times; there was little difference in the results; I've just posted the middle results below.

# 0 .. 5
             Rate with_map with_for
with_map 602818/s       --     -23%
with_for 780657/s      30%       --

# 0 .. 40
             Rate with_map with_for
with_map  92655/s       --     -23%
with_for 120756/s      30%       --

# 0 .. 5000
          Rate with_map with_for
with_map 745/s       --     -23%
with_for 968/s      30%       --
[download]

The smallest difference was -21% vs. 27%; the largest was -25% vs. 33%. As the range was increased, all values tended towards -23% vs. 30% (the middle values for all runs).

In this instance, for is faster than map (i.e. what I've always found in the past).