At 6:09 PM +0100 5/19/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 07:33:53PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 7:25 PM -0400 5/18/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>> >Yeh I know that word is yucky and from Java land, but in this case,
>> >I think that
>> >"system" PMCs should take liberties for o
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 07:33:53PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 7:25 PM -0400 5/18/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
> >Yeh I know that word is yucky and from Java land, but in this case,
> >I think that
> >"system" PMCs should take liberties for optimization.
>
> *All* PMCs should take liberties for o
>>>Also, it's perfectly fine for a coordinated group of PMCs (like, say,
>>>the ones that provide perl's base scalar behavior) to share grubby
>>>internal knowledge, though I'd like to keep that under control, as it's
>>>easy to get out of sync.
Ok, now that I'm looking closer, it appears my
At 7:35 PM -0400 5/18/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 07:33 PM 5/18/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>At 7:25 PM -0400 5/18/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>>>Yeh I know that word is yucky and from Java land, but in this
>>>case, I think that
>>>"system" PMCs should take liberties for optimization.
>>
>>*All
At 07:33 PM 5/18/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 7:25 PM -0400 5/18/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>>Yeh I know that word is yucky and from Java land, but in this case, I
>>think that
>>"system" PMCs should take liberties for optimization.
>
>*All* PMCs should take liberties for optimization. PMC vt
At 7:25 PM -0400 5/18/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>Yeh I know that word is yucky and from Java land, but in this case,
>I think that
>"system" PMCs should take liberties for optimization.
*All* PMCs should take liberties for optimization. PMC vtable entries
are the only things that should know the
