sub match_range {
    my ($string, $start, $end, $length) = @_;
    my $range = join '', $start .. $end;
    return
        $range =~ /$string/
        && $string =~ /^[$range]{$length}$/;
}
[download]

Makeshifts last the longest.

Actually what I did was introduce two guard clauses. I am aware that it was correct in either fashion, it is my preference to have drop-through rules of the manner displayed previously. I also prefer explicit "false" return, and if there was some way I could say "return false" and get the same effect as just "return" I'd be using it :) undef isn't a bad concept tho.

Those are simply elements of my style however, the reasoning behind guard clauses is obvious in larger functions, in this case it is superfluous but assuming a reasonably efficient action on the part of the interpreter I see no likely efficiency loss, so the consistency rule applies :)

The re-use of the $range var is nice however.

The problem with return 0 is that it's true - in list context. The only false list is the empty list and yours has one element.

Your approach separates a single statement into three distinct ones and will execute that way too. There is in fact loss of efficiency associated with using blocks there. The interpreter cannot optimize anything in the first place, and if you meant compiler optimization, it won't salvage any efficiency because it's rather rudimentary even if it has a few clever tricks for some highly specific cases.

And not only does it execute that way, it has to be read like that too, with far more brackets and keywords around to grok. Compare the plain-English translations:

if an assertion fails abort the function, if a second assertion fails abort the function, if still here then return true

vs

return the combined success of assertion one and two

You tell me which one is more fluidly readable. Remember - source code is only coincidentally machine interpretable, its main purpose is to be read by a programmer.

Makeshifts last the longest.