At 6:09 PM +0100 5/19/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 07:33:53PM -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.
>
>Is there any understandable and maintainable way that we can use the same
>(base) code to generate two sets of core PMCs - one set that have all the
>"cheating" optimisations, and another set (or set of code) that is
>internally clean and can be inherited from?
I'm not really sure we *should* be inheriting from base PMC classes
at this level. Yeah, it's a nifty idea, but I don't know that it's
appropriate here.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
