This actually makes the version without for more powerful!

Maybe, maybe not. Setting $, equal to $/ compromises your ability to use both for their designated purpose:

@array = map{ [ 'a'..'f' ] } 1 .. 6;;
print @$_ for @array;;
a b c d e f
a b c d e f
a b c d e f
a b c d e f
a b c d e f
a b c d e f
[download]

Apples and oranges. We were talking about print for reverse vs print reverse. for clearly compromises it:

$, = ", ";
$\ = "\n";
@array = map{ [ 'a'..'f' ] } 1 .. 6;;
for (@array) {
   print for reverse @$_;
}
__END__
f
e
d
c
b
a
f
e
d
c
b
a
f
e
d
c
b
a
f
e
d
c
b
a
f
e
d
c
b
a
f
e
d
c
b
a
[download]

$, = ", ";
$\ = "\n";
@array = map{ [ 'a'..'f' ] } 1 .. 6;;
for (@array) {
   print reverse @$_;
}
__END__
f, e, d, c, b, a
f, e, d, c, b, a
f, e, d, c, b, a
f, e, d, c, b, a
f, e, d, c, b, a
f, e, d, c, b, a
[download]

Updated to use parent's @array.

I don't get your latest point. What you've demonstrated is that if you want the array printed with just field separators, you do not use for, but if you want them printed one per line, you do use for.

Your original point appeared to be saying that rather than use for to achieve the one per line output used in the OP, it would be better to set $, to a newline. I challenged that assumption, and you seem to have come back full circle.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.