I said "another", not "a more valuable." As for preferable, I think it depends. Consider:

   print pop @{[sort qw(a f e b)]};
   print (reverse sort qw(a f e b))[0];
   use List::Util qw(maxstr); print maxstr qw(a f e b);
[download]

pop @{[ sort qw(a f e b) ]}
(Sort, make an array and a reference to it, dereference it, get the last item.)

would be

( sort qw(a f e b) )[-1]
(Sort, get the last item.)

min/minstr/max/maxstr is both shorter, less work, and more straightfoward, but it is not nearly as flexible.

maxstr qw(a f e b)
(Get max item.)

Other than that print (sort @array)[0] would be a syntax error without a + snuck in the right place? :)

We both known Perl is very finicky when parens are omitted. But

print [sort @array]->[0]
[download]

would still be simpler, no?

But that's a whole character longer . . . :) (But then again the square version requires hitting shift one less time so it has that going for it :)

print +(sort @array)[0];
print [sort @array]->[0];
[download]

Possibly could an interesting benchmark if anyone's so inclined: does slicing the value off the stack beat constructing the anonymous arrayref (which gets tossed immediately) then deref'ing, and what the falloff is as @array grows.

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.

Aren't the following functionally equivalent, i.e. Sort, make an array and a reference to it, dereference it, get the [first] item?

print [sort @array]->[0];
print @{[sort @array]}[0];
[download]