robartes appears to be the first to have correctly answered the question, but I'll respond to this as you've answered more in depth and you have a question that needs answering.

The article that I read, by Sean Burke, is about Constants in Perl. It discusses some a traditional compiler optimization known as "constant folding". Essentially, this occurs when, for a given operations, if all of the operands are known at compile time and cannot change, then the compiler goes ahead and precomputes the resulting value to save a bit of time.

perl -MO=Deparse -e 'print 3*4'
print 12;
-e syntax OK
[download]

Thus, what appears to be an expression is turned into a literal constant. Note that the 3*4 is now optimized away. There is no longer any remnant of that code. This, naturally, would be even more useful when it occurs in an inner loop, but the mechanism is not perfect and Perl sometimes needs to be helped. See the article for details and the snippet below for an example.

$ perl -MO=Deparse -e '$i=6;$j=2;print 3*4*$i*$j*3*4'
$i = 6;
$j = 2;
print 12 * $i * $j * 3 * 4;
-e syntax OK
[download]

That result is disappointing, but adding the '-p' switch to force parenthese can tell us why Perl is getting a bit confused.

$ perl -MO=Deparse,-p -e '$i=6;$j=2;print 3*4*$i*$j*3*4'
($i = 6);
($j = 2);
print(((((12 * $i) * $j) * 3) * 4));
-e syntax OK
[download]

Tying all of that together with my snippet, we have the following quote from the third Camel.

Inlining Constant Functions

Functions prototyped with (), meaning that they take no arguments at all, are parsed like the time built-in. More interestingly, the compiler treats such functions as potential candidates for inlining. If the result of that function, after Perl's optimization and constant-folding pass, is either a constant or a lexically scoped scalar with no other references, then that value will be used in place of calls to that function. Calls made using &NAME are never inlined, however, just as they are not subject to any other prototype effects.

Because Perl can optimize the sub call away, there is no longer any subroutine for the typeglob to override.

Juerd wrote:

I think I found a bug in my B::Deparse. perl -e'sub foo(){2}' doesn't even display the definition of foo, while dada's Deparse does display inlined subroutines. It's not as if the sub is completely gone: perl -le'sub foo(){2} print *foo{CODE}()' does work as expected. Perl 5.8.0 on linux x86. Please confirm.

I don't believe this is a bug. I ran that on my Linux box at home with both 5.6.1 and 5.8.0 and the latter does not display the definition of the sub, but the former does. I suspect that this is actually an optimization where there is no need to have the sub's code in the bytecode if it's been optimized away. Unfortunately, I cannot find a reference to this in the 5.8.0 docs and thus cannot confirm it.

Cheers,
Ovid

Thanks to larsen for pointing out my typo: s/Contacts/Constants/;

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.