>From A6: > I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast > subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of > handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to do better > than Perl 5. Perhaps we can have the default be to have wrappable subs, and > then turn that off with specific declarations for speed, such as "is inline".
I think there's a lot of room between "allow this subroutine to be wrapped" and "inline this subroutine." Whatever the "specific declaration for speed" is that forbids runtime wrapping of a subroutine, it should not be spelled "inline." (although "inline" may imply "dontwrapmeplease" or whatever :) -John
