-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Moin,
On Sunday 26 June 2005 18:35, Dave Mitchell wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 03:16:37PM +0200, Tels wrote: > > * no matter how you measure it, memory consumption goes down > > Only if the whole code body manages to avoid including Carp.pm. As soon > as any module anywhere manages to include it, even indirectly (quite > likely), its a net loss since as well as Carp.pm using memory, you have > a bunch of extra wrapper functions in each of the modules that have > been 'improved', all using memory too. Yes, the grand masterplan was to do all modules in the core. I just didn't want to send in one big monster patch, but do it step by step. I had to start somewhere :) And in any event, nobody loades _all_ modules at the same time, so even if there is one module still loading Carp, it still would be a gain for all modules that use anything beside the left-over module(s). For instance, Benchmark.pm probably doesn't need to worry about loading Carp, if you do benchmarks, that bit of memory hardly matters. I am more worried about everyday scripts and the most-often used modules like File::Path etc. Best wishes, Tels - -- Signed on Sun Jun 26 19:57:28 2005 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email. "Some spammers have this warped idea that their freedom of speech is guaranteed all the way into my hard drive, but it is my firm belief that their rights end at my firewall." -- Nigel Featherston -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBQr7tzXcLPEOTuEwVAQGE+wf+LvQZh8dNpvZfaKHuGynKZjlRtVKYDt/9 rqhe+Azy9GcIzvjC7dg+G/RAuIyv14SLYIaxXBmQ15RZEPG7Eyz1KMLh3AYbSDl1 9Zp4xyEExUEkn8WHKo+GSYQMGCc+CMLTcZmo7KPX5n5qoskyqlvgC/JxhCsWKITS XcaPOqdoZpgjOBO68uo0huhtMXy8WN5eKtuv0US/UmMO2RGJb924dhimnv8/i3Wt aSXJ1Chia5S6rEu5bfvq8yxegWD7aqieVKcAzIyRG86LqbcEFEEuyKl2/aiN/AcU O5PcRljM6Dpl06+y7ODjyab5UjvjkwqkZ8ZmI/pfxRFlpHc5CWo/fQ== =Eq/4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
