At 12:34 PM -0700 8/1/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2002, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> > sub it is dealing with. While I am thinking about it, would it make
>> sense to distinguish between a sub and a closure? A sub would be a
>> little more efficient in cases where a closure is not needed.
>
>Closures aren't really that much more expensive than subs -- just an extra
>hash (or whatever) for lexicals. And while I could be wrong, I think that
>subs will _always_ be closures.
More or less always, yeah, at least for perl. It's tough to have a
sub that's not a closure.
> > > - not integrated with lexicals. Parrot is a fast-moving target nowadays!
>>
>> Current discussion on the list makes me wonder if this is still up in
>> the air a bit. However I would be happy work on this, once I feel like I
>> understand what the consensus is for lexicals ...
>
>Great. I'm as much in the dark consensus-wise as you are, if not more so.
>I suspect it will come down to a tug-of-war between introspective power
>(e.g. %MY, caller, etc) and interpreter speed (I'm biased toward the
>former).
Joys of engineering. I'll get a position doc out soonish.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
