chilledham makes a good point, i should have seen it.. the \ and n are being treated as individual characters

@arr = split /\|/;
for (my $x = 0; $x < @arr; $x++) {
    $arr[$x] =~ s/\\n/\n/g;
}
$dbh->execute(@arr);
[download]

Been seeing this for (my $x = 0; $x < @arr; $x++) sort of thing around the Monastery of late.

Is there a reason people prefer it to for (@arr)?

or is there no reason at all?

If you've actually seen that, I hope the node had acquired some corrective replies.

Perhaps what you've actually seen is:

for (my $i = 0, $i < $#arr, $i++) {
#corrections  ^      ^^           ^
#strictly speaking, the commas instead of semis are merely my preferen
+ces
    do something...;
}
<br>
<c>
[download]

because the line you posted won't even compile... whereas the example in this node is basicly a C-style loop, possible written that way to show the counter.

C:\>perl -E "my @arr=qw(foo bar baz);for (my $x = 0; $x < @arr; $x++){
+ say $x };"
0
1
2
[download]

My apologies to all those electrons which were inconvenienced by the creation of this post.

The "line" I posted was actually an excerpt, and identical

to the one in your second example. I am confused about

what you think I did wrong.

I was actually referring to glenn's code, which

made no use of the counter aside from indexing.

Even if you were to want to show a counter, there are other ways

my $c = 0;
for(@a){
    print "$c: $_\n";
    $c++;
}
[download]

I do not like using $_ I like to know exactly which element is called. Also $#arr returns the last index of the array while @arr returns the number of elements, the difference is $x <= $#arr vs $x < @arr.