develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2015

Re: OP_SIGNATURE

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Zefram
Date:
March 5, 2015 15:23
Subject:
Re: OP_SIGNATURE
Message ID:
20150305152338.GT8710@fysh.org
Dave Mitchell wrote:
>                                             Since other people are making
>assertions that it should be possible to get nearly as good performance as
>OP_SIGNATURE with a combination of more generic ops,

Who's asserting that?  I haven't, and I wouldn't because, like you, I
wouldn't be convinced of it without a fairly specific design.  Indeed,
I have already explicitly acknowledged that it would be difficult for
anything else to equal the signature op for speed.

>                                                     the onus is *you* to
>come up with a specific proposal, which I can then either accept, tweak, or
>demonstrate to be slower.

My objections to the signature op are not based on any assertion that
its performance is suboptimal, so demonstrating that another design is
slower (or even that all possible other designs are slower) would not
refute my objection.  You seem to be projecting your monomoniacal focus
on speed onto those who argue againt the signature op.  It's coming
across as a straw man.

-zefram

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About