Jonathan Leto wrote: > Would making the open opcode a dynop create a noticeable decrease in > performance? That is the only reason I can see that we would not want > to go that route.
As I mentioned on #parrot, it's not clear to me why 'open' needs to be an opcode (or a dynop, for that matter) at all. It sounds like the thing you'd find as a method call in a (core) library, really. So deprecating 'open' as an opcode (and replacing it by an appropriate library function, if that doesn't exist already) seems to solve that problem :-) Cheers, Moritz _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
