-Original Message-
From: Dominic Dunlop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
previously difficult or impossible (or merely verbose). But it's
also more or less poorly documented, more or less poorly understood,
more or less well-used, and more or less poorly tested. (Indeed,
some of it's sti
At 01:02 PM 8/2/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:37:49PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Right. That was my point. (The original poster wanted to pull IO out of
> the
> > core entirely)
>
>Ah. Barbarians-at-gates approach, then.
Damn straight. Dump the boiling oil! :)
>O
May I offer an alternative. Why do an interpreter?
I remember reading good things about Threaded Interpreters
(e.g. Forth) So why not do a TIL? Compile it to machine calls/jumps.
Should be much faster than the inner run loop.
This would fit in with Dan and Nick's keep it in cache.
So there cou
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:37:49PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Right. That was my point. (The original poster wanted to pull IO out of the
> core entirely)
Ah. Barbarians-at-gates approach, then. On the other hand, there is
a lot of rubbish that *can* go out of core; I'd like to see core being
Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>No, I disagree. Perl gains a lot of its expressive power from being lax
>about typing. I suspect it will also impose an unacceptable overhed for
>the vast majority who don't want it - at the very least every variable
>access will have to check an 'are
201 - 205 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
