Which statement was your "no" responding to? The original statement I believe is: "With for(@tied_array) we also doesn't need to calculate the length of the list in advance" which you said "That's not true." which I then demonstrated with Range::ArrayIter, which then you replied to with "no" followed by cases where tied-array-based iterator would fail. Sure, the tied-based iterator does not work in all cases, but we are talking specifically about a single "for(@tied_array)".
What I want to know is why you said (in essence) that "With for(@tied_array) we still need to calculate the length of the list in advance".
In reply to Re^12: Getting for() to accept a tied array in one statement
by perlancar
in thread Getting for() to accept a tied array in one statement
by perlancar
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |