Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2013
On Wed Apr 10 04:29:03 2013, nicholas wrote: > But I guess this comes down to a design decision - what are those > pointers > really about. Are they a speedup, where the desired semantic remains > that > the interpreter behaves as if it's looking things up in %:: as it > needs them? > Or are they a specified part of the implementation, in that the > interpreter's > direct pointers are *initially* made available in %::, but if Perl- > space is > careless it can loose its access to them? I'd mostly prefer to protect symbols, but I wonder if that would prevent interesting uses[1] of the current implementation. We have three choices I can think of: 1) retain the current implementation - the user can crash perl from pure perl, but there might be interesting things the user can do with that power. 2) protect any globals connected to PL_* from deletion 3) ensure PL_* are updated when their perl variables are updated. I can see 2) or 3) having a performance impact if they cover all the variables we want to protect (if we do it by name.) I don't really have an opinion either way. Tony (Looking at this ticket because it has patches.) [1] none of which I can think of right now --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=117543Thread Next