> I've no strong opinions on how it's done, but I do believe that > it's *very* important that subroutine calls be as fast as possible > (and significantly faster than perl5). This must be a priority. > > To my mind that means that a subroutine should be responsible for > setting up whatever _it_ needs (and ideally only what it > knows it needs).
I agree both on priority and on methodology. I'd expect while programming that if I used a subroutine feature not used in most subroutine executions (like continuations) that I'm going to have to pay for that feature when I use it and only when I use it. Making all subroutine executions pay for a feature that only a few will use seems like a design misfeature to me. [Mark, thinking back to his PDP-11 assembler days...] =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN "We have tamed lightning and used it to teach sand to think"
