Me writes: : Larry: : > Currently, @ and [] are a promise that you don't intend to use string : > indexing on this variable. The optimizer can make good use of this : > information. For non-tied arrays of compact intrinsic types, this : > is going to be a major performance win in Perl 6. : : Assuming that optimization opportunities remained intact, They won't, but go on. : do you think conflating @ and % would be a perl6 design win? Nope, I still think most ordinary people want different operators for strings than for numbers. Dictionaries and calculators have very different interfaces in the real world, and it's false economy to overgeneralize. Witness the travails of people trying to use cell phones to type messages. Larry
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation Hillary
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Hillary
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation <C. Garrett Goebel>