On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 11:56 -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 09:41:37PM -0700, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 21:08 -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > > > 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). > > They do carry more overhead (perhaps even a significant amount), but it's > a necessary overhead because we want them to properly participate in > multidispatch, and we'd like things like .signature to work properly.
I get the feeling that dispatch performance is going to be utterly critical for Perl 6 (all implementations). It seems to me that in gaining flexibility and orthogonality, we've lost a lot of places that Perl 5 could special case things for speed. Of course, Perl 6 allows us to optimize *different* things for speed -- hyperoperators come to mind -- but it's hard to let go of the things that you already have, you know? /me goes back to blind faith in the coming happy place .... -'f
