Not only: if print were really a longer portion of code, you may {want,need} to refactor it into a sub, with the added overhead of a sub call (and here we're being -for once- really paranoid 'bout efficiency and micro-optimizations), which would not have been necessary at all if we had that kind of syntactic sugar...Well, that would ask for syntactic sugar with an overhead of less than a subroutine call....
Note that with clever use of string eval you can duplicate the code without having to maintain it twice, and not have the overhead of calling a subroutine from a loop. And you can move the eval as far out as you want (so the overhead of calling it becomes small enough).
In reply to Re^3: Doing "it" only once
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Doing "it" only once
by Limbic~Region
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |