On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 05:19:16PM +0000, David Mitchell wrote:
> Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mused:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:03:49PM +0000, David Mitchell wrote:
> > > BTW, should the vtable include all the mutator operators too, ie
> > > ++, += and so on, on the grounds that an implementation may be able
> > > do this more efficiently internally?
> >
> > ++ and -- are already slightly messy in perl5
> >
> > pp_preinc, pp_postinc, pp_predec and pp_postdec live in with all the ops.
> > They know how to increment and decrement integers that don't overflow,
> > and call routines in sv.c to increment and decrement anything else.
> >
> > Actually, this nearly provides a divide between values and operators
> > that has been suggested, with the speed up hack for the common case.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you. What is the "this" in "this nearly provides a
> divide"?
this example.
I think the "nearly" probably should go.
Maybe I should have written "++ and -- in perl5 provides an example of a
(nearly clean) divide between operator and value
> Confused of Sheffield.
Hmm. Yes. I'm confused too.
Confused of Newcastle
