On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 10:39:51AM +0200, Edwin G?nthner wrote:
> > They are experimental, and it's not a good idea to rely on them in
> > production code. In fact, pseudo-hashes are on their way out. Typed
>
> Sorry to hear that. I liked the idea to have something more efficient
> than hashes ... on the other hand it is apparent that implementing
> pseudo-hashes is a difficult job to do.
The problem was that the inefficiency introduced by pseudo-hashes. To quote
from the relevant p5p summary
(http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2001-05/msg01513.html):
Michael Schwern asked that pseudo-hashes should be removed from Perl 5.8
and onwards.
He found that pseudohashes are about 15% faster than hashes, but that
the current implementation is layered over the hash code so that:
Tearing out the pseudohash code gives an across the board 10-15%
gain in speed in basic benchmarks. That means if we didn't have
pseudohashes, normal hashes would be just as fast as fully declared
pseudohashes!
So don't mourn their passing.
> > lexicals look a little more permanent, but AFAIK the feature is still dubbed
> > experimental, so the same caveats apply until its status changes.
>
> Is there a schedule/ a defined point in time when the perl
> authorities will decide on "experimental features"?
Such a schedule was bandied about at one point, but I don't believe anything
was firmly decided. You'd have to search through the p5p archives to be
sure.
Michael
--
Administrator www.shoebox.net
Programmer, System Administrator www.gallanttech.com
--
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
