What do you call the second example? The way I see it, I only posted one.

Sorry, my wording was pretty bad. I was referring to your examples of a single reference to an ‘anonymous’ scalar and of ten references to ‘anonymous’ scalars. The first one genuinely has no extra scope, whereas the second one has the for introduce the extra scope.

But why would you do that. I can't imagine any scenario where you'd do that. Can you come up with a real world example where you need to generate more than one such reference in the same scope?

The only common use of anonymous scalars that I know is as blessees when the contents don't matter. I've occasionally used this to produce ‘poor man's mixins’:

bless [ bless \do { my $anon } => A, bless \do { my $anon } => B ] => 
+C;
[download]

Now package C can delegate calls to methods that should be handled by package A or B. I'm not sure if that's a good usage, though.

If there was such an case, it seems to me that having different names for different variables would be a good thing.

I agree that different names for the references is good, but avoiding introducing an extra scope requires different names for the referents. That is, I'd have to write something like

bless [ bless \my $anon_in_A => A, bless \my $anon_in_B => B ] => C
[download]

instead.