On Sep 24, 2004, at 7:32 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:28 PM -0700 9/24/04, Jeff Clites wrote:On Sep 24, 2004, at 6:51 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
However, the point is still sound, and that WILL work in P6, as I understand it.
Hmm, that's too bad--it could be quite an opportunity for optimization, if you could use-and-discard lexical information at compile-time, when you know there's no eval around to need it.
Even if not it's going in anyway. The introspection abilities are more than worth the extra memory that the name hashes use.
It's a compiler issue. You're right that no matter what, you need lexical pads as a feature in Parrot for...those cases where you need lexical pads. But it's nice to have stuff that a compiler can optimize away in a standard run, and maybe leave in place when running/compiling a debug version--but that's a matter of the semantics of the language. (And I'm less worried about the memory than I am about all of the pushing and popping and by-name stores and lookups, which could optimized away to just register usage.)
JEff
