Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [17-07-2006 23:59]:
> Radoslaw Zielinski writes:
>> Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [17-07-2006 15:10]:
>>> Radoslaw Zielinski writes:
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [14-07-2006 12:34]:
[...]
>>>>> + && !$doing_user_rules)
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + no strict "refs";
>>>>> +
>>>>> &{'Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus::'.$methodname}($self,@extraevalargs);
>>>>> + use strict "refs";
>>>> No need for 'no strict':
>>>> my $method = 'Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus::' . $methodname;
>>>> $self->$method(@extraevalargs);
>>> Sorry -- I'd need to see more platform checks to ensure that really *is* a
>>> safe change now; it was added years ago by Matt for a reason, as I recall.>> This syntax seems perfectly safe for me. Maybe a ,,benchmark reason'': >> Rate oostyle stricthack >> oostyle 277557/s -- -21% >> stricthack 349650/s 26% -- >> How many times is it called for each message? Do we get to process one >> more per year? ;-) > Doesn't this mean that the "strict" thing is faster? ;) Yes it does. I just wonder... how much, actually. ;-) -- Radosław Zieliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpEfyu6KJoDY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
