Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Nope. (Well, sort of, but there are days when I'm a Coder Of Very Little
> Brain, so take it with however much salt as need be) I want to isolate us
> from vtables for another reason entirely.
>
> Binary compatibility.
>
> If we isolate things that don't need to deal with vtables from those
> vtables it means we can completely redo how perl handles variables
> internally, but extensions and embedding apps won't need to know anything
> about it. Yank out the old, drop in the new, and nobody knows we switched
> from vtables to, say, the old perl5 way, or to some new Ultra-Clever(tm)
> variable access scheme.
>
> It also means that we isolate folks from the details they don't generally
> need to know. Not that I mind people knowing we do vtables, but you
> shouldn't be forced to care. The less annoying trivia about perl's
> internals you need to know the more room in your brain for useful things.
> (Or annoying trivia about other things, but that is *not* my problem...:)
> "Hiding" things like this (And yes, those quotes are actually appropriate)
> reduces the level of cognitive complexity. This is good--details are a
pain
> in the butt, and people aren't good at details.
I just expect consistency, e.g. nothing like sv_xyz, SvXYZ, SV_XYZ, SVt_XYZ
and I wonder what else there would be!!! (damn XS!)
- Branden
