in reply to Re^2: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint
in thread c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint

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.
  • Comment on Re^3: c-style for loop versus list for loop, and bigint

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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.¹

    Cheers Rolf

    UPDATE:

    1) seems like overloading the range operator was never intended: Overloadable Operations

      Neither bigint nor Math::BigInt mention [] the range operator.

      Which to my way of thinking means that this isn't a problem.

      But you'll doubtless have your own meandering & multiply updated opinion.


      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.
        > But you'll doubtless have your own meandering & multiply updated opinion.

        And doubtless you fall back to rhetorical tricks, when you're running out of arguments. :)

        Cheers Rolf