>>>>> "AT" == Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Wouldn't just the appearance of *foo = \&other_foo, be enough to tell
>> the compiler to treat all foo's (or perhaps if there were some dataflow
>> analysis some region of code) to use indirection?
AT> You're forgetting eval "*foo = \&other_foo" and the like. :-)
AT> And, if modules are threaded when they're bytecompiled, it's rather
AT> difficult to intuit some random invocant's use of *foo = \&other
AT> (at runtime) to add the required indirection post hoc.
AT> Perl's expected behavior almost requires unthreaded bytecode. Threaded
AT> bytecode could work, if it's explicitly requested (thus making
AT> *main::localtime = *foo = \&bar; a fatal error, at the user's request.)
I don't see it.
I would find it extremely akward to allow
thread 1: *foo = \&one_foo;
thread 2: *foo = \&other_foo;
Rather, this style should be done via a variable indirection &{$foo}.
I don't see much of a speed hit. Until the *foo assignment is actually
done, all threading is directly to the body of &foo. When the *foo
assignment is done,
copy the &foo body to a new location.
replace the old &foo body with an indirection
(I believe this is atomic.)
And optionally, the indirection could be to a fixup routine, that would
adjust the caller to directly point at the new body.
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
