Good to know. Thanks for trying!

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Ken Collins <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I managed to get many of the &block's removed and did not notice a
> performance gain. I think that since most delegate down to a few core
> methods that require the &block argument in order to eval the binding, the
> gains are lost. Since there  is no way to eval a blocks binding without
> naming the argument, I think this little exercise of mine is failed :)
>
> Just FYI.
>
>
>  - Ken
>
>
> OK, I'll take a look. About the only hot spot I saw was the block_is_haml?
> method which relies on eval'ing using the binding. My meta-fu was not strong
> enough to figure out a way around that. I'll see what I can come up with and
> let you know.
>
>  - Ken
>
>
> Sure, a patch to switch this to yield would be fine.
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Ken Collins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is my understanding that using &block as an argument is both a
>> performance hit and not needed. Much of the rails source itself has
>> moved to yielding to the block in a method in various ways so that you
>> do not have to convert that block to a proc object. Much of my own
>> code has started to follow this pattern too.
>>
>> I am curious if anyone has considered removing all the &block
>> arguments to measure the performance? I would be happy to fork and
>> work on a patch, but I just wanted to gauge if this topic has come up
>> before.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Haml" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected] <haml%[email protected]>.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.

Reply via email to