I don't know how you get "it would be better to set $, to a newline" from "It's more flexible."

Your original post, quoted here for continuity of context,

Nit: 
print for reverse @list; 
is equivalent to 
print reverse @list; 
when $, and $\ are equal (as they are by default).
[download]

Made no mention of flexibility.

You nit picked the OP's code implying that his use of for was redundant if $, and $\ were the same. I pointed out that this was not the case with the OP's code.

I drew the inference from that post and your next that you think that setting $, to "\n" was better than his use of a for loop. I drew this inference because without that, your original post made no sense.

Unless you take the step of setting $. = "\n",

print reverse @list;
[download]

produces entirely different results from

print for reverse @list:
[download]

If you were not so implying, I wonder why you bothered to throw this piece of--correct, but disconnected--information into the thread in the first place?