On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 05:29, Michele Dondi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, David Ross wrote:
>
> > I have been studying PERL 5 core and modules to identify options and
> > issues for meta-architectures and automated code generation. PERL 6
> > documents and discussion provide insight essential to
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, David Ross wrote:
I have been studying PERL 5 core and modules to identify options and
issues for meta-architectures and automated code generation. PERL 6
documents and discussion provide insight essential to effectively using
PERL 5 and preparing for PERL 6.
[snip]
developing
David Ross skribis 2004-11-24 12:00 (-0500):
> I have been studying PERL 5 core and modules to identify options and
> issues for meta-architectures and automated code generation. PERL 6
> documents and discussion provide insight essential to effectively using
> PERL 5 and preparing for PERL 6.
If
David Ross writes:
> How much of the overhead for method dispatch/return is or can be
> incurred at compile time? If call and return signatures are defined at
> compile time is it possible to eliminate switch code and/or jump
> tables as an optimumization?
We hope so, in the absence of a pragma te
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 01:10, Larry Wall wrote:
> On the other hand, in a language like Perl, it's easy to come up
> with contexts that don't specify the type context as well as the user
> might expect. Plus asking for your return context is not necessarily
> going to be terribly efficient anyway
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:51:29PM +, Matthew Walton wrote:
: And can I overload based on return types?
In the case of an MMD tie, the default routine could use the return
type context to break the tie. That's about the limit of what's
practical, I suspect. Possibly we could give some declar
Luke Palmer wrote:
Also, would things blow up if I specified the return types for operator
overloads, such as
multi sub *infix:Â+Â (EvilNumber $lhs, EvilNumber $rhs) returns
EvilNumber is deep { ... }
In that case I don't see why it would blow up. If you said, say:
multi sub *infix:Â*Â (Ve
Matthew Walton writes:
> However, if I alter my operator overload to be
>
> multi sub *infix:Â+Â (EvilNumber $lhs, EvilNumber $rhs) is deep { ... }
>
> I get *infix:Â+=Â defined as { $lhs = $lhs + $rhs; } for free. Is that
> right?
Yep.
> Also, would things blow up if I specified the return ty
