Re^2: Unexpected behaviour with constant lists and foreach (and closures?)

in reply to Re: Unexpected behaviour with constant lists
in thread Unexpected behavior of '..' lists

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by counting loop. Are you saying that

foreach $x (expr1..expr2) { blah }

is implemented more like

for ($y=expr1 ; $y<expr2 ; $y++) { $x=$y; blah }

internally ?

Comment on Re^2: Unexpected behaviour with constant lists and foreach (and closures?) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Unexpected behaviour with constant lists by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jul 20, 2006 at 18:43 UTC
Indeed. It's probably implemented identically to `for (my $x=expr1 ; $x<=expr2 ; $x++) { blah }` Update: Changed "<" to "<=".	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Unexpected behaviour with constant lists by diotalevi (Canon) on Jul 20, 2006 at 19:32 UTC
It's not implemented like that at all. There's a specific set of ops meant for the range operator. It's much better than the longhand for(;;) which would be lots of more ops to dispatch. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]
Re^5: Unexpected behaviour with constant lists by ysth (Canon) on Jul 21, 2006 at 19:22 UTC
There's a specific set of ops meant for the range operator. In general, yes, but those aren't used at all in this optimization. The only compilation difference between `for (1..4) { }` and for (1,4) { } is the former sets OPf_STACKED on the enteriter op. </c> t's much better than the longhand for(;;) which would be lots of more ops to dispatch. Yes.	[reply] [d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom