in reply to Re^5: use constant for strings (unary plus)
in thread use constant for strings

Intriquing. The very best savings I could achieve using map $_, list over map{ $_ } list; was under 1%. And I thought I was the clown of micro-optimisations:)

The number of chars is identical, and even comparing the dumps using perl -MO:Bblock... show only minimal differences.

I tend to stick with the block form as it allows me to insert additional statements (like print;) into the block without having to change the syntax which I find especially useful when debugging pipelined maps, grep's and sorts--as used in the ST.

Personally, I find it visually clearer too. TIMTOWTDI:) YMMV... etc. etc.

Examine what is said, not who speaks.
1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible
3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: use constant for strings (unary plus)
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Apr 19, 2003 at 13:40 UTC
    It's not really for the savings, as he already said, so much as for the conceptual purity. The only reason to use a block here is parsing rules. I can say something like 
    @username = map scalar getpwuid($_), @uid;

    [download]
    The only reason I can't say 
    @year = map (localtime $_)[5], @timestamp;
# "Not enough arguments for map at line XY"

    [download]
    is parsing rules. Using a block just because this is parsed slighly differently than the first example basically feels like a kludge, like clutter. It's like saying 
    print do { (localtime $timestamp)[5] };

    [download]
    instead of 
    print +(localtime $timestamp)[5];

    [download]

    Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom