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


Thread Previous | Thread Next
Tony Cook
March 5, 2015 23:41
Message ID:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:35:43PM -0500, James E Keenan wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 03:12 PM, Jan Dubois wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Dave Mitchell <> wrote:
> >>Since this is an internal implementation detail change to an experimental
> >>feature, I'm hoping that it will be non-controversial to merge it into
> >>bleed once it passes smoking.
> >
> >I'm hoping too that this will be considered non-controversial.
> Simply observing the volume of discussion in this thread suggests
> that it cannot be considered non-controversial and is therefore
> ineligible for Perl 5.22.
> I don't claim to have an understanding of opcodes sufficient to take
> a stand one way or the other on the issue.

I love this change from a performance standpoint.

I'm not sure it belongs in 5.22.

Any module that attempts to process OP trees and needs to deal with
the OPs that would otherwise be produced for a signature (B::CC is one
example, I think) have a shorter period of time to be updated to deal
with the new and complex OP_SIGNATURE.


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