Re^3: map vs for\foreach.

Sorry I misunderstood your question (see update in meantime), but it can still be the same effect that for tries to be clever and iterates @a, while map is flattening.

Output with perl -MO=Terse seems to indicate this...

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)}

PS: Je suis Charlie!

Comment on Re^3: map vs for\foreach. Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: map vs for\foreach. by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 13, 2015 at 17:35 UTC
`for (@a)` is indeed optimized to not place the elements of `@a` on the stack. `for ((),@a)` would prevent the optimization.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: map vs for\foreach. by builat (Monk) on Mar 11, 2015 at 14:40 UTC
Thx. For this info. It new for me.	[reply]
Re^5: map vs for\foreach. by LanX (Saint) on Mar 11, 2015 at 14:56 UTC
> It new for me. Not sure if I was able to help you, this area of implementation details is a moving target. And the margins you benchmarked do not really justify any micro-optimisations here, because different Perl versions can behave differently. Personally I'd rather prefer `for` to alter an array via alias, such side-effects in `map` might confuse other readers (a map in void context used to be a matter of warning) Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)} PS: Je suis Charlie!	[reply]