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. Clearly the promise can be broken, so there has to be a check somewhere along the line, right? If there is, and the check shows you don't have a (reasonable) integer, then perl can just switch to a hash lookup. I'd assume you are doing something vaguely similar to this any way, to do sparse arrays. If such a check is done, and the compiler code is written appropriately, there should be no reason why it incurs extra machine instructions in the event of there being an integer subscript.
- 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
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation <C. Garrett Goebel>
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Michael G Schwern
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Buddha Buck
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway