On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:06:51PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 04:01 PM 1/6/01 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote: > >Gosh, really? I thought it was so significant that it didn't go in core. > >If it was that small, why *didn't* it go in core? > > Because a guaranteed 3-5% slowdown in the interpreter, regardless of > whether you use signals or not (and the vast majority of perl code that > runs doesn't) *is* significant. The cost just wasn't worth the benefit. Hmm. No-one produced a patch with 2 loops, 1 for normal use, and 1 when %SIG has handlers other than default or ignore assigned to it. Would that be an acceptable perl5 compromise? [follow up to p5p please] Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next