On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Why? We could make arglists exactly equivilent to the way they're done in
> Perl 5, which is a good way.
>
> sub foo($a, $b, *@c) {...}
>
> Would be exactly equivilent to Perl 5's
>
> sub foo { my ($a, $b, @c) = @_; ... }
I've got anothe
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
: I've got another idea. How about using a copy-restore technique?
I suspect that would make Perl 6's sub calls even slower than Perl 5's.
Larry
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> : I've got another idea. How about using a copy-restore technique?
>
> I suspect that would make Perl 6's sub calls even slower than Perl 5's.
Yes and no.
For the normal case (pass-by-value semantics), it
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> > : I've got another idea. How about using a copy-restore technique?
> >
> > I suspect that would make Perl 6's sub calls even slower than Perl 5's.
>
> Y
