Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2010
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, hv@crypt.org wrote: > Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com> wrote: > :However, for my opinions for the topic in hand... > : > :as regards tiedness, there are actually two orthogonal issues of > :correctness. The first is which order in which the two $a's in $a.$a are > :evaluated; the second is how many times $a is evaluated. It is quite > :possible for the order not to be defined, but still for the fact that $a > :is evaluated twice to be defined. For example, someone might be using tie > :to instrument the number of accesses to a variable. > > This agrees with my thinking - I do not care a jot about the order of > evaluation for this case, but I would be unhappy about any change to > the number of times magic is invoked unless there were first strong > evidence presented that substantial improvements (to speed or something > else) would justify the change. Could you explain _why_ you would care about invoking magic twice, but don't care about the order of evaluation? And could you also explain why it makes sense that $a.$a has to invoke magic twice, while $a x 2 will only call it once? Cheers, -JanThread Previous | Thread Next