sub x { $_++ for @_; @_[1,4] = (2,5); &z; }
You're probably right (in your doubt that this may be feature rather than a mal-feature - I see arguments for both possibilities), but ability to modify @_ and &-form of sub call still existing apart, I suppose that if one really wanted to do this sort of manipulations, then the way to go would be would be by means of magic goto, which would avoid the call altogether, and thus using the stack for... err... well, nothing.
In reply to Re^2: map vs for (not the usual breed)
by blazar
in thread map vs for (not the usual breed)
by blazar
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |