Alan Gutierrez wrote:
>
> C< use less 'recursion' > sounds just find to me.
>
> The negation of C< use less 'rolled_loops' >,
> C< use more 'unrolled_loops' >, does not sound very weird at all.
> Weren't we planning on haveing a use more as an opposite of use less? If
> so, let cuteness prevail!
Yeah, but let's say you can specify storage exactly, as I proposed in
RFC 319:
# ideas for RFC 303
use optimize storage => 16, # how much space
growable => 1, # can we grow?
growsize => 8, # how much to grow by
integer => 1, # support ints
string => undef, # but not strings
float => undef, # or floats
promote => 'bigint'; # promote to class
# when outgrow
If you're specifying an exact number or definition, neither C<use less>
nor C<use more> makes sense.
-Nate
