Re^2: Optimising concat (was Order of evaluation/interpolation of references)

Reguarding the update,

Thankyou for re-reading. The update is just a re-iteration of the original content.

On my 64-bit system, minimum allocations are 8 bytes. (64-bit alignment).

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

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^2: Optimising concat (was Order of evaluation/interpolation of references)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Optimising concat (was Order of evaluation/interpolation of references) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 09, 2012 at 23:05 UTC
It just occurred to me that using a list concat would cause the OP's `print "${X()} ${X()}\n";` [download] to behave the same as his `print "${X()}${X()}\n";` [download] Faster AND fewer surprises :) (Or is it su-prises?) Of course, the OP will still be surprised by the difference in `$ perl -E'my $x=5; sub X { \(++$x) } say ${ X() } + ${ X() };' 14 $ perl -E'my $x=5; sub X { \(++$x) } say ${ X() } + 0 + ${ X() };' 13` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Optimising concat (was Order of evaluation/interpolation of references) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 09, 2012 at 03:02 UTC
Poor choice of words on my part. I meant "Guessing from the update".	[reply]