>>>>> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:59:04AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> >Which is exactly what Chip did in his safe-signals patch. 33% slowdown.
>> I think you misremember that number. IIRC it was somewhere between 3%-5%.
SC> Gosh, really? I thought it was so significant that it didn't go in
SC> core. If it was that small, why *didn't* it go in core?
why don't we ask chip about it?
SC> My main point, though, was that this discussion is actually many
SC> years old, safe signals in Perl is not a new problem, and it might
SC> be helpful to people if they learnt a few things about the
SC> history.
they are not a new problem but we have a chance to do all the right
stuff at once with a fresh slate. chip didn't have that opportunity. he
didn't do a full event loop and async i/o either. he didn't redesign the
core to use those features (which might save plenty of time outside the
main loop). i do want to learn from history but not i don't know all the
details about everything done. just look at the way you and dan
disagreed on the speed loss (we should get that info from chip).
uri
--
Uri Guttman --------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
