Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >At 01:02 PM 1/6/01 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote: >>that is what i would expect form a simple flag test and every N tests >>doing a full event poll. and even up to 5-10% slowdown i would think is >>a good tradeoff for the flexibilty and ease of design win we get in the >>i/o and event guts. but then, i have always traded off speed for >>flexibility and ease. hey, so has perl! :) > >Not always. :) The flexibility really does need to balance out the speed >hit. (If Nick wasn't in the middle of rewriting the whole IO system, I'd >probably be assaulting sv_gets to make up for the speed hit I introduced >way back with the record reading code...) Nick has yet to touch sv_gets() - partly 'cos it was too scary to mess with - so you can if you like ;-) -- Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Dan Sugalski
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Simon Cozens
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Dan Sugalski
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Uri Guttman
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Dan Sugalski
- safe signals (was Re: perl ... Nicholas Clark
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Uri Guttman
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Uri Guttman
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Dan Sugalski
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: perl IS an event loop (was ... Bart Lateur
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Simon Cozens
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: perl IS an event loop (... Uri Guttman
- Re: Speaking of signals... nick
- Re: Speaking of signals... Filipe Brandenburger
- Re: Speaking of signals... Damien Neil
- Re: Speaking of signals... Nicholas Clark