Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I can't think of any reason why this feature is useful anymore, and it
> can be a really confusing behavior, so what say we kill it in Perl 6?
I've always thought is was pretty useful for implementing generic
redirectors. I wrote a frame system that allows instances to
Ken Fox wrote:
> The only thing I'd like to change is to make &foo a tail call instead
> of a normal function call. But I guess that would *really* confuse
> people.
You can, with C< goto &$foo; >.
Problem is, it's *slower* (in p5 anyway) than the plain sub call.
--
John Porter
A word spoken i
Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > I can't think of any reason why this feature is useful anymore, and it
> > can be a really confusing behavior, so what say we kill it in Perl 6?
>
> I've always thought is was pretty useful for implementing generic
> redirectors.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:58:00AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> You can, with C< goto &$foo; >.
> Problem is, it's *slower* (in p5 anyway) than the plain sub call.
By only 10%. Let's keep things in proportion here.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
P
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:48:55AM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > I can't think of any reason why this feature is useful anymore, and it
> > can be a really confusing behavior, so what say we kill it in Perl 6?
>
> I've always thought is was pretty useful for implementing ge
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily
> *explicitly* pass it or use goto.
I never thought of using goto actually. "goto &$method;" actually
looks clearer than the code I'm using. (Although with re-directors
we want to minimize cost so the 10% p
From: Ken Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily
> > *explicitly* pass it or use goto.
goto does screw up caller... so I wouldn't say *anytime*
> I never thought of using goto actually. "goto &$method;" actua
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:50:35PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily
> > *explicitly* pass it or use goto.
>
> I never thought of using goto actually. "goto &$method;" actually
> looks clearer than the code I'm usi
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:02:50PM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Ken Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily
> > > *explicitly* pass it or use goto.
>
> goto does screw up caller... so I wouldn't say
