Re^2: Trouble getting size of list returned from sub

[Anonymous Monk]

Actually they all do that, they copy the list to the "stack", its just that map introduces a scope, by the time it ends, perl has a chance to release the memory it used back to the OS -- an optimization

For a long time map/grep in scalar/void context took double the memory than equivalent for loop, so depending on perl version memory usage will differ between these two lines

warn scalar grep {1} foo(); 
my $count = 0; $count++ for foo(); warn $count ;

wantarray is what you want to use if you want to be sure :)

[ColonelPanic]

Actually, it is not a scoping issue. By that logic, this should also save memory:

    sub get_size { my @a = big_list(); return scalar @a }
    my $size = get_size();

However, in a simple test, that uses the same memory as a global array that does the same thing.

Perl, generally speaking, does not release memory back to the OS unless your system is running out of memory. The memory from lexical variables can be claimed and reused by Perl, but it doesn't go back to the OS.

All of the other methods created an array in addition to what was copied on the stack. map only creates an array of 1s in addition to what was copied on the stack; thus it uses less memory (unless your original data is no bigger than integers, of course) (and yes, this was not always true in older versions of Perl).

[Anonymous Monk]

Actually, it is not a scoping issue

Sure it is

By that logic, this should also save memory:

No, you're copying the list, same as map used to do, even in void context, instead of merely aliasing it -- @_ is alias until you copy it, but you figured that out yourself in Re: Trouble getting size of list returned from sub

[ColonelPanic]

Sure it is

I responded to your earlier claim that memory from lexical variables is returned to the OS, based on both a statement from the Perl FAQ and evidence from testing. So, simply continuing to assert your previous position without any new argument is not going to cut it. I would be happy to learn how I am wrong on this, but if I am wrong please explain why.

No, you're copying the list...

This appears to be a response to the subroutine solution I posted below. Again, the evidence from testing seems clear enough--it uses less memory than the solutions that explicitly or implicitly make a copy of the array. In this case, my assumption was that the list returned from the first function call is left on the stack and used as the arguments for the second function call. @_ then refers directly to the stack, and thus no new copy is made. Again, I would be happy to be proved wrong on this.

Note: I'm assuming you're the same Anonymous Monk as the previous one here. My apologies to both of you if that is incorrect.