experimental "for_list" solves so many issues of each , that I'm already very happy if it's not slower.
It's elegant, orthogonal and intuitive, and I hope the experimental phase will be a success.
This benchmarks claims it to be much faster, but we all know how tough it is to write reasonable benchmarks which don't compare apples with oranges.
Actually I'm surprised that copying large hashes into a list can even compete with the built-in iterator-counter of perl hashes used by 'each'.
The implemention must be very clever. Or the overhead will only show with much larger hashes.
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
see Wikisyntax for the Monastery
In reply to Re^3: Why does each() always re-evaluate its argument? (Updated x2 - experimental "for_list" )
by LanX
in thread Why does each() always re-evaluate its argument?
by Darkwing
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |