At 10:34 AM 9/5/2001 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
>Dan wept:
>
> > I knew there was something bugging me about this.
> >
> > Allowing lexically scoped subs to spring into existence (and
> > variables, for that matter) will probably slow down sub and
> > variable access, since we can't safely resolve at compile time what
> > variable or sub is being accessed.
> >
> > [snippage]
> >
> > Not that I'm arguing against it, just that I can see some
> > efficiency issues.
>
>Understood. And that's why you get the big bucks. ;-)
I'm getting paid? Keen! :-P
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
- Re: What's up with %MY? Me
- Re: What's up with %MY? Ken Fox
- Re: What's up with %MY? Uri Guttman
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- RE: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock
- RE: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- Re: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Uri Guttman
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: What's up with %MY? Ken Fox
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dave Mitchell
