Your original point appeared to be [...] it would be better to set $, to a newline.

I don't know how you get "it would be better to set $, to a newline" from "It's more flexible." My point was the opposite, that you didn't have to set it to a newline.

In the typical case ($, and $\ not used), eliminating the for eliminates a useless loop is eliminated.

In the atypical case ($, and $\ used), eliminating the for allows the Field Seperator ($,) to be used as the field sperator. Before removing the for, the Line Seperator ($\) was used as both the Line Seperator and the Field Seperator.

Update: Made the point even easier to read.

I don't know how you get "it would be better to set $, to a newline" from "It's more flexible."

Your original post, quoted here for continuity of context,

Nit: 
print for reverse @list; 
is equivalent to 
print reverse @list; 
when $, and $\ are equal (as they are by default).
[download]

Made no mention of flexibility.

You nit picked the OP's code implying that his use of for was redundant if $, and $\ were the same. I pointed out that this was not the case with the OP's code.

I drew the inference from that post and your next that you think that setting $, to "\n" was better than his use of a for loop. I drew this inference because without that, your original post made no sense.

Unless you take the step of setting $. = "\n",

print reverse @list;
[download]

produces entirely different results from

print for reverse @list:
[download]

If you were not so implying, I wonder why you bothered to throw this piece of--correct, but disconnected--information into the thread in the first place?

---

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.

I pointed out that this was not the case with the OP's code.

Actually, you pointed out that this was not the case with -l. There was no mention of the OP using -l, and I hadn't noticed 'til now. That changes everything.