At 7:35 PM -0400 5/18/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 07:33 PM 5/18/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>At 7:25 PM -0400 5/18/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>>>Yeh I know that word is yucky and from Java land, but in this
>>>case, I think that
>>>"system" PMCs should take liberties for optimization.
>>
>>*All* PMCs should take liberties for optimization. PMC vtable
>>entries are the only things that should know the internal
>>structures, and they're allowed--heck, encouraged--to take any
>>liberties needed for speed.
>>
>>I don't much care if it breaks inheritance at the PMC level. Too
>>bad. The speed's more important here.
>
>Well then, I'll take that as a yes, and will take a few "liberties"
>to add 20% to our benchmarks. :)
D'oh! Yep, I wasn't clear--go for it.
Also, it's perfectly fine for a coordinated group of PMCs (like, say,
the ones that provide perl's base scalar behavior) to share grubby
internal knowledge, though I'd like to keep that under control, as
it's easy to get out of sync.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
