Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joe Schaefer wrote:
[...] >> I could be wrong though, so benchmark that if it's a concern. > > The 'fallback' approach is almost 3 times slower: Good to know, thanks. > Well, I just reported a segfault caused by overload (well it can be > easily avoided, was caused by a recursive overload). Right- I've seen that segfault before, and I don't think it has anything to do with fallback mode. IME overload is very hairy code, and I try to avoid it whenever possible. I guess it's unavoidable here though because we're creating error objects instead of making ordinary SVs. > How about we keep an explicit mapping for now and add > fallback if later we will see that there is a need for it? OK, but you'll probably be needing quite a few more subs (string comparisons, etc.). Of course more tests will help flesh all that out ;-) -- Joe Schaefer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
