On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:53:46PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2012 09:38:54 H. S. Teoh wrote: > > This is a non-problem once the compiler implements memoization as an > > optimisation. Which it can't until we go ahead with this change. > > This is the direction that we *should* be going anyway, so why not > > do it now rather than later? > > I would point out that there are no plans to implement any kind of > memoization in the language or compiler. Also, while it can help > performance, it can also _harm_ performance. So having it controlled > by the compiler is not necessarily a great idea anyway. It's really > the sort of thing that should involve profiling on the part of the > programmer. [...]
Then I agree with bearophile that we should have @memoize (or its negation), so that the programmer can indicate to the compiler that the function should be memoized (or not). T -- It won't be covered in the book. The source code has to be useful for something, after all. -- Larry Wall
