Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from September 2001
At 09:30 AM 9/4/2001 -0700, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > >The only good justification I've heard for "final" is as a directive
> > >for optimization. If you declare a variable to be of a final type, then
> > >the compiler (JIT, or whatever) can resolve method dispatch at
> > >compile-time. If it is not final, then the compiler can make no such
> > >assumption because java code can load in extra classes later.
> >
> > This is the only real reason I've seen to allow final. (And it's not a bad
> > reason, honestly, though not necessarily one appropriate in all cases) It
> > does allow a fair amount of optimization to be done, which can be
> > especially important when you can't see all the source. (Pretty much the
> > case in all languages that compile down to object modules you
> > link together later)
>
>If our intention is only for optimization, I prefer to use word "inline"
>instead of "final". The word "final" already has been abused. It is very
>awkward to use it for this purpose.
Fair enough. I don't much care what its called, as long as I know what it
does.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next