On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 06:34:31PM -0700, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > None of them. That's why Class::Multimethods doesn't use CLOS's awful
> > "left-most argument first" resolution mechanism.
>
> So what is the next step. How do you define the next most-matched methods.
Please look at how Class::Multimethods works and what is described in
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/256.pod before continuing. Play with
Class::Multimethods, because I believe that's pretty much RFC 256.
> > That is simply not correct. There is a considerably body of research on
> > efficient dispatching. Dan is already aware of this.
>
> I don't like this statement. If it was not an issue, why we need
> considerable research on it.
I think you misunderstood him. Damian ment that people have *already*
done considerable research into efficient multimethod dispatch. All
we (read 'Dan') have to do is read up on it.
> Let's say C is only 80% of Fortran on math, I still don't see the
> reason to put math into C language for the last 20% of speed. It may
> be my personal preference.
The difference in speed between a pure-perl multimethods
implementation and an in-core implementation should be considerable.
If you're curious, benchmark the existing Class::Multimethods module
against normal method calls.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
I'm spanking my yacht.
