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


Thread Previous | Thread Next
March 5, 2015 16:08
Message ID:
On 5 March 2015 at 16:23, Zefram <> wrote:
> 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.

To me it is coming across as frustration that you aren't acknowledging
the importance of speed to the vast majority of users.

And I share that frustration.

I don't believe signature pluggability is a very important goal in
comparison to performance improvements to subroutine calls, and I
don't accept the premise that it is better to do nothing than it is to
add OP_SIGNATURE. I think that you can have what you want once you
build it, and that adding OP_SIGNATURE now shouldn't get in the way of


perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

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