--- John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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."
Hmm. In this area, I'm surprised that Larry didn't know better. My confidence in the implementation team's ability to produce fast functions, regardless of wrappage, is pretty high. I agree with you, John -- "make this fast" and "make this inline" aren't the same thing by a long shot. =Austin
