Steve Grazzini wrote: > > What do you think is happening under the hood for something like > > > > print for (0..0, 1, 2..5, func(6)..func(99)) > > I think the whole list would have to be generated. The optimization > only applies to the case where there's just one range in place of the > LIST.
I agree. I'm not familiar with the ineternals of the language, but from a logical perspective, a range is a function, equivalent logically to the basic i++ C loop. There is absolutely no reason to generate a list for something that is so straigtforward in mathematical terms. The line above processes a logical list, where each discrete item has a very wide range of possiblities for its value. I find the Perl sytax a better match with the for or foreach in terms of expressing the desired functionality. The two posts we're discussing demonstrate how well the Perl syntax promotes natural language programming. The C-style syntax better demonstrates the difference between a list and a range: range; for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) list: for (ScalarArray * item = ARGV, i = 0; i < item->count(); i++) Okay, I'm a little rusty on my C, and I don't know the precise implementations of range as opposed to list operations in Perl, but it seems pretty clear that there is a lot more processing required for any list, especially in an untyped language such as Perl, than for an integral range. I assume that Perl has some optimisations for lists that have only numeric values, but that is not something I would rely on. Joseph -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
