John Siracusa wrote:
From A6:
I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of
handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to do better
than Perl 5. Perhaps we can have the default be to have wrappable subs, and
then turn that off with specific declarations for speed, such as "is inline".
I think there's a lot of room between "allow this subroutine to be wrapped"
and "inline this subroutine." Whatever the "specific declaration for speed"
is that forbids runtime wrapping of a subroutine, it should not be spelled
"inline."
(although "inline" may imply "dontwrapmeplease" or whatever :)
I don't see how a sub being inline-able prevents being wrap-able.
In most langausges an inline declaration is only a suggestion and
often there is a real version of the sub in addition to any
inlined copies. Besides a wrapped inline sub is in no different
situation as a inlined sub being called in another inlined sub,
this seem to be all part of what the compiler has to be able to do
to deal with a recursive sub that is also declared inline.
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
