Larry: > Currently, @ and [] are a promise that you don't intend to use string > indexing on this variable. The optimizer can make good use of this > information. For non-tied arrays of compact intrinsic types, this > is going to be a major performance win in Perl 6. Assuming that optimization opportunities remained intact, do you think conflating @ and % would be a perl6 design win?
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation Hillary
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Hillary
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens