Nested Function Compositions vs. Temporary Variables for Memory Management

In Dyalog APL, managing memory for large array transformations often involves a trade-off between readability and the efficiency of the copy-on-write mechanism. One approach utilizes deeply nested function compositions to pass intermediate results directly, while the alternative uses explicit temporary variables within a dfn to break down the logic.

While nested expressions can reduce the number of named entries in the symbol table, sequential assignments provide clearer debugging paths. However, there is uncertainty regarding the garbage collection timing for large intermediate arrays when they are produced within a complex nested expression versus when they are assigned to local variables.

Given a constraint of high-memory pressure during large-scale array manipulation, which approach better optimizes the lifecycle of intermediate results? Does the Dyalog APL memory manager reclaim memory from nested intermediate results more aggressively than from named local variables?