Re: RFC 334 (v1) I'm {STILL} trying to understand this...

[Dan Sugalski]

At 11:21 PM 10/12/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:55:52PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think it's that big a deal.  Easy enough to wrap in a macro.
> >
> > I thought (hoped) that the plan was the avoid the cpp like the plague
> > and cancer it is.
>
>Well, yes, definitely; but we're just adding an argument to the front
>of the arg list.  Is that so bad?

Yes, it is.

Extra arguments cost. It's not free to pass them in by any means--you can 
see hits up to 10% in some extreme cases. If the arguments are used it's 
one thing, but if they're dummy (as they would be in those cases where the 
indirect routine you're calling *isn't* a perl one) then that cost can 
really add up.

CPP won't help us either, since we'll be calling these routines indirectly, 
via a function pointer in C. There's no way we can reasonably get CPP 
involved, even if we wanted to.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk