No. I verified that the case of for(LIST(@_)){ ... } is optimized away into for(@_){ ... } because that is what is in the original code. I also (since you just asked) tried for(@A,@B), for(@A,@B,1) and in all cases the list op was removed. Maybe the list op shows back up when there is something non-simple to read from - functions and builtins.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Optimizing the bejeezus out of a sub
by diotalevi
in thread Optimizing the bejeezus out of a sub
by sgifford
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |