On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:38:13 -0700, tonyc wrote: > It looks reasonable to me. Thanks. > One thing I noticed in the original code was that > STORE_LC_NUMERIC_SET_TO_NEEDED() could call the possibly expensive > IN_LC(LC_NUMERIC) up to three times: > > + ( ( in_lc_numeric && > _NOT_IN_NUMERIC_UNDERLYING) \ > + || (! in_lc_numeric && > _NOT_IN_NUMERIC_STANDARD))); \ > + if (in_lc_numeric) { > \ > > (for a bare STORE_LC_NUMERIC_SET_TO_NEEDED() in_lc_numeric is > IN_LC(LC_NUMERIC) ) Yes, I addressed the same in my second patch, in a slightly different manner. Hugo --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=134172Thread Next