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

Re: OP_SIGNATURE

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Lukas Mai
Date:
March 5, 2015 18:35
Subject:
Re: OP_SIGNATURE
Message ID:
54F8A1CC.5030903@gmail.com
Am 05.03.2015 um 17:54 schrieb Karl Williamson:
> On 03/05/2015 09:15 AM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:08:18 +0100, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 March 2015 at 16:23, Zefram <zefram@fysh.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
>>> it.
>>
>> Hear, hear!
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> +1
>
> Given that this is an experimental feature, I don't see any validity in
> saying it's better to do nothing.  Regardless of what the eventual API
> comes out as, it's just experimental, now.

+1

-- 
Lukas Mai <plokinom@gmail.com>

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