Not surprising
for (START .. STOP) { }
is magically optimized into an iterator to avoid building the list.
But if you try
for (reverse START .. STOP) { }
instead, you will see the memory consumption, because that optimization is (unfortunately) missing here.
Cheers Rolf
In reply to Re^5: Why is const x const not a const?
by LanX
in thread Why is const x const not a const?
by PerlGrey
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |