Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2015
March 5, 2015 16:08
Message ID: CANgJU+W4qs0k_ML4YetwdWAKczUvw7BDW+QFt8cgcPXNOwmFJw@mail.gmail.com
On 5 March 2015 at 16:23, Zefram <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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/"