On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 12:33 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Ah, shouldn't optimization be automatic? Much preferrable to provide
opt-out optimizations instead of opt-in optimizations.
No. That's why I tend to opt-out of writing in C and opt-in to writing
Perl.
Perl (all versions) and
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 07:49 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a potential keyword, or perhaps a ubiquitous method, or
> > both. But how to differentiate "sealed under optimization" versus
> > "sealed under inheritance"?
>
> I do
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 07:49 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
Sounds like a potential keyword, or perhaps a ubiquitous method, or
both. But how to differentiate "sealed under optimization" versus
"sealed under inheritance"?
I don't understand the question.
The point is not for module autho
--- Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
> > The thinking at the last design meeting was that you'd explicitly
> say
> > "Consider this class closed; I won't muck with it in this
> application"
> > at compile time if you need the extra optimization in a particular
> > applica
chromatic wrote:
> The thinking at the last design meeting was that you'd explicitly say
> "Consider this class closed; I won't muck with it in this application"
> at compile time if you need the extra optimization in a particular
> application.
In Dylan, this is called a sealed class. It tells t
