Re: Ops versus subs (Was: Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values)

[Dan Sugalski]

At 09:06 PM 8/3/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 07:21 PM 8/3/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > >Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Theoretically, we'd like to make subs run as fast as ops.
> > >I'd say that the distinction between subs and ops should be dropped
> > >completely. Ops can be used as subs, subs as ops. The only
> > >distinction in the way either is used.
> >
> > Whoa there. I don't think that's possible. (Not the least of which
> > because subs are written in perl, and ops are in some compiled
> > language)
>
>Thats implementation. This is perl6-language.
>
>My point is that from language perspective, there is (or should be) no
>difference.

Ah, I was looking bottom up, not top down. (It was the speed comment that 
got me) Wrong set of glasses, sorry. :)

                                        Dan

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