On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 06:55:56PM -0500, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
: Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:
: > I don't think so; we're just talking about whether you can extend a
: > class at _runtime_, not _compiletime_. Whether or not Perl can have
: > some degree of confidence that, once a program is comp
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:20:22AM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote in perl.perl6.language :
: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:11:59AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
: >: When you say CHECK time, do you mean there'll be a CHECK phase for
: >: code that gets required at run time?
: >
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> I don't think so; we're just talking about whether you can extend a
> class at _runtime_, not _compiletime_. Whether or not Perl can have
> some degree of confidence that, once a program is compiled, it won't
> have to assume the worst-case possibility of runtime alter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> Well, just for clarification; in my anecdotal case (server-side web
> applications), the speed I actually need is "as much as I can get",
> and "all the time". Every N cycles I save represents an increase in
> peak traffic capabilities per server, whic
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:11:59AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> : When you say CHECK time, do you mean there'll be a CHECK phase for
> : code that gets required at run time?
>
> Dunno about that. When I say CHECK time I'm primarily referring
> to the end o
