Re^4: Unexpected behaviour with constant lists

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.

⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊

Comment on Re^4: Unexpected behaviour with constant lists

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]