Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2015
March 6, 2015 16:08
Message ID: CANgJU+XmGE_gubvcQv1YKmyV8G9voohsrk4z25R2i8yA4R1+sQ@mail.gmail.com
On 6 March 2015 at 16:33, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:15:51 +0000
> Zefram <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I'm slightly surprised that you're not excited by the obvious
>> possibility here: you can implement the signature op as a CPAN
>> module. It would involve writing the peep-time recognition code,
>> which I know you won't enjoy, but look at the upside: full
>> signature-op optimisation on 5.20! Think of the performance you can
>> deliver straight to production by not tying it to the core. By
>> virtue of the peeper knowing definitively where the subroutine
>> starts, you'd even get to make the all-pad-scalars-clear assumption
>> without risk of nasty interactions.
> I would much rather see this as a CPAN module that can apply to 5.20
> (or even earlier by pattern-matching of common optree shapes such as
> the my (...) = @_ idiom)
So go ahead and implement it. While you are doing so the rest of us
would much rather see this merged to core so we can use it now.
I have yet to hear a decent reason why adding this to core is going to
stop you or Zefram from doing it another way on CPAN.
It really bothers me that you guys keep pushing like this. If you
think you can do better, then go ahead, but stop using the possibility
that it can be done better a different way to block the rest of
getting the benefit of what Dave has done. If you get something better
actually complete, then we can disable OP_SIGNATURE and use your code.
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"