Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2016
>
> I agree with removing indirect object notation examples given in core
> documentation. If anyone strongly objects to removing examples from the
> perspective Abigail originally provided ("Seeing it is knowing it
> exists"), we can keep it in some cases with a comment saying direct
> methods should be used instead.
>
> Regarding the "indirect" pragma, I believe last time I saw a
> significant reduction in speed, which I think should at least be
> revisited in any future suggestion of implementing it in core. Off-hand,
> I don't see a particular problem with providing it with a "use 5.x"
> pragma statement. I would be happy to see a discussion around the topic
> before any decisions are reached.
>
What performance hit are you talking about? indirect.pm acts purely at
compile time, so unless your code relies on a lot of eval()s, the impact
on performance is minimal - but then you're already screwed
performance-wise anyway.
Even if that's not the topic of this thread, I will reiterate that I
would strongly object to incorporating the current implementation of
indirect in core. That's not the way you should do it when you can just
hack into the parser.
Vincent
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next