On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:04:47AM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
: On 3/12/03 1:50 AM, Mark Biggar wrote:
: > John Siracusa wrote:
: >>> From A6:
: >>> I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
: >>> subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion
--- John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From A6:
> > I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to
> compile fast
> > subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion
> of
> > handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to
> do better
>
On 3/12/03 1:50 AM, Mark Biggar wrote:
> John Siracusa wrote:
>>> From A6:
>>> I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
>>> subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of
>>> handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like t
John Siracusa wrote:
From A6:
I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of
handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to do better
than Perl 5. Perhaps we can have the default
>From A6:
> I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
> subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of
> handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to do better
> than Perl 5. Perhaps we can have the default be to have wr
