Re: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint

Because the range operator (integer iterator) is not affected by bigint. You can also do:

use strict;
use warnings;
use bigint;

my $answer = 0;
for my $i ( map 0+$_,1 .. 999 ) {
  print "$i: $answer\n";
  $answer += $i ** $i;
}

$answer %= 10 ** 10;

print "$answer\n";
[download]

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

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

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

Comment on Re: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint by AR (Friar) on May 19, 2011 at 20:45 UTC
Because the range operator (integer iterator) is not affected by bigint Is that intentional?	[reply]
Re^3: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 19, 2011 at 20:52 UTC
Is that intentional? Yes. The range operator is intended to be efficient for the majority of every day use cases. As you've already discovered, if you need to iterate infinite precision integers, you can easily use the c-style alternative. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]
Re^4: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint by LanX (Saint) on May 19, 2011 at 21:44 UTC
> The range operator is intended to be efficient for the majority of every day use cases. oh please come on! Don't you think `use bigint` may indicate a non everyday use case? Neither bigint nor Math::BigInt mention this problem or even the range operator. And maybe it's even possible to fix by overloading "`..`" in UNIVERSAL.š Cheers Rolf UPDATE: 1) seems like overloading the range operator was never intended: Overloadable Operations	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 19, 2011 at 21:56 UTC
Re^6: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint by LanX (Saint) on May 19, 2011 at 22:01 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^3: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint by LanX (Saint) on May 19, 2011 at 20:50 UTC
>Is that intentional? let's say it's historical. :) I suppose the range iterator is just older than bigint. I wouldn't be surprised if bigint is just just a hack to overload scalars with objects and the effect of iterating over a range was forgotten. Cheers Rolf	[reply]
Re^4: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 19, 2011 at 20:55 UTC
Actually, I'm fairly certain that the conversion of the range operator from a list generator to an iterator happened long after bigint was available. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]
Re^5: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint by LanX (Saint) on May 19, 2011 at 21:03 UTC