At 10:34 AM 9/5/2001 +1100, Damian Conway wrote: >Dan wept: > > > I knew there was something bugging me about this. > > > > Allowing lexically scoped subs to spring into existence (and > > variables, for that matter) will probably slow down sub and > > variable access, since we can't safely resolve at compile time what > > variable or sub is being accessed. > > > > [snippage] > > > > Not that I'm arguing against it, just that I can see some > > efficiency issues. > >Understood. And that's why you get the big bucks. ;-) I'm getting paid? Keen! :-P Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
- Re: What's up with %MY? Me
- Re: What's up with %MY? Ken Fox
- Re: What's up with %MY? Uri Guttman
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- RE: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock
- RE: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- Re: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Uri Guttman
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: What's up with %MY? Ken Fox
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dave Mitchell