Re^2: Number of times I've used goto in Perl

Compare and contrast:

#!/usr/bin/env perl 
use strict;
use warnings FATAL => 'recursion';

my $i = 0;

one();

sub one {
    print "$i\n" unless ++$i % 10;
    push @_, 'foo';
    &one;
}
[download]

#!/usr/bin/env perl 
use strict;
use warnings FATAL => 'recursion';

my $i = 0;

one();

sub one {
    print "$i\n" unless ++$i % 10;
    push @_, 'foo';
    goto &one;
}
[download]

Like much in the way of the Swiss Army Chainsaw you need to know precisely what you're doing if you run it with the guards off. Limbs can be easily lost.

Comment on Re^2: Number of times I've used goto in Perl Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Number of times I've used goto in Perl by LanX (Saint) on Sep 26, 2018 at 14:19 UTC
Hm ... ... is the goto version faster? Is this a way to have tail-recursion in Perl? Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice}	[reply]
Re^4: Number of times I've used goto in Perl by Eily (Monsignor) on Sep 26, 2018 at 15:04 UTC
I'm pretty sure there was a detailed explanation of what makes goto slower (in most cases?) than a plain `⊂` call. But while searching for it I did end up finding this post and this answer. I would be tempted to guess that the function call with goto was more expensive (because of the extra magic to clear the local scope and play with the call stack), but the return was more efficient because it didn't require going back through all the calling stack (ie, tail recursion done right). I wouldn't rely on the result of benchmarks from 2005 for current versions of perl though :P	[reply] [d/l]