RE: Should MY:: be a real symbol table?

[Dan Sugalski]

At 01:44 PM 9/4/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This also makes scope entry and exit costlier, since you need to make a
> > savestack entry and restore, respectively, for each lexical. I don't think
> > it'd be a win, even if closures weren't getting in your way.
>
>although to be fair, the current run-time action of my() is to push a
>"remember to clear me at the the end" note onto the savestack - not
>quite as much work as pushing the old SV onto the savestack and
>allocating a new SV, but work nevertheless.

Sure. Parrot'll have a 'clean out the pad' operation at the end of a scope 
to do a quick sweep for DESTROYable variables, so there's something 
similar. Still extra time, though.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk