Michael Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 12:42:52PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote: > > But now you're throwing away the kid with the bathwater. > > > > my Dog $spot; > > > > initially was syntax invented so that $spot was marked as only been ably > > to reference a Dog, with as a result that code internally could be > > optimized, by doing things at compile time why otherwise would need to > > be dealt with at runtime. (use fields, as the most notable example). > > Don't throw that away. > > Just to be clear, I'm not throwing it away. Nothing's preventing the > compiler from still doing that optimization. I'm simply tacking on > additional meaning, that it creates a Dog object out of $spot. You are throwing it away because your proposal means we don't get to use the optimization in a whole bunch of places where we could before. -- Piers
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... David E. Wheeler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot s... David E. Wheeler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot s... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot s... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot s... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot s... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor i... Slaven Rezic
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor i... Michael Fowler