On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 21:08 -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 01:25:28AM -0500, fREW Schmidt wrote: > > > Lesson from the Forth world: In cases where the semantic of a high-level > > > word exactly (or very closely) matches an instruction in the hardware's > > > ISA, it really deserves to be a primitive. > > > > Yeah, the main reason I did it was because it was on the rakudo wiki for > > candidates for the setting. > > By putting floor/ceiling/round/sign/abs as a candidates for the setting > I was really aiming more for "inline PIR" than a pure Perl 6 solution. > We still need those functions to have signatures and (perhaps) > participate in multidispatch, and that's easier if the function > definitions are Perl 6 (with the function bodies being inline PIR > or a mixture of Perl 6 and inline PIR).
Gotcha. Sounds fine by me (as long as the Perl 6 signatures don't carry significantly more overhead than the pure-PIR version). -'f
