On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 11:56 -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 09:41:37PM -0700, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 21:08 -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
By putting floor/ceiling/round/sign/abs as a candidates for the setting
I was really aiming more for "inline PIR" than a pure Perl 6 solution.
We still need those functions to have signatures and (perhaps)
participate in multidispatch, and that's easier if the function
definitions are Perl 6 (with the function bodies being inline PIR
or a mixture of Perl 6 and inline PIR).
Gotcha. Sounds fine by me (as long as the Perl 6 signatures don't carry
significantly more overhead than the pure-PIR version).
They do carry more overhead (perhaps even a significant amount), but it's
a necessary overhead because we want them to properly participate in
multidispatch, and we'd like things like .signature to work properly.
I get the feeling that dispatch performance is going to be utterly
critical for Perl 6 (all implementations). It seems to me that in
gaining flexibility and orthogonality, we've lost a lot of places that
Perl 5 could special case things for speed.

Of course, Perl 6 allows us to optimize *different* things for speed --
hyperoperators come to mind -- but it's hard to let go of the things
that you already have, you know?

/me goes back to blind faith in the coming happy place ....


Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 7 of 8 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupperl6-compiler @
postedMar 14, '09 at 9:07p
activeMar 24, '09 at 11:53p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase