develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2014

Re: Single-item padrange?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Father Chrysostomos
October 20, 2014 15:29
Re: Single-item padrange?
Message ID:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:28:24PM -0000, Father Chrysostomos wrote:
> > I also wonder why padrange insists that op_next be equal to
> > op_sibling.  The B overlay feature seems to complicate things, IMO.
> Well, if you want to fix up all the places in that expect a
> lexical var and fix them up, and add tests, be my guest!

Maybe I should *look* before I speak!  The overlay feature is helpful
here.  We just don't need to set op_next, since B::Deparse does not
actually use it.

And concerning the rest of the thread, my benchmarks show that in
aslice and map padrange seems slightly slower than eliminating list
& pushmark.  So the latter optimisation should stay in list con-
text.  It was only in the contrived (0,($lex1,$lex2)) that padrange
proved faster.

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About