On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:41:30AM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:02:17PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > Wouldn't an incremental on-demand engine be much
> > more flexible and optimizable (e.g. finding 'the fast path' smells
> > like input-driven LRU to me)?
>
> Umm,
> As Rick pointed out, there's no problem with overloading =~ for an
> object, in the same way it's done with `eq', and one object's
> function could return either an object or a closure (a sub
> reference), so that a module could even hide the details of whether
> it's using the ob
Damian Conway wrote:
>I'm well-known as a non-delving-into-the-guts type of guy. I don't have
I totally aggree with you that delving into the guts is the last thing we,
the people that use perl as a tool, want to do! The fact is that, the least
we know about the internals, the better
