On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:43:59PM -0500, John Macdonald wrote:
: On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 11:23:49AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:11:03PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: > : All of that is fine, as far as I'm concerned, as long as we give the
: > : user the proviso that cha
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 11:23:49AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:11:03PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> : All of that is fine, as far as I'm concerned, as long as we give the
> : user the proviso that chained buts might be optimized down into a single
> : cloning operation or
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:11:03PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: All of that is fine, as far as I'm concerned, as long as we give the
: user the proviso that chained buts might be optimized down into a single
: cloning operation or not at the compiler's whim, but it could be a nasty
: shock if it's
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 12:30, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 11/15/05, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This question came out of a joking comment on IRC, but it's a serious
> > concern. Can chained buts be optimized, or must the compiler strictly
> > create intermediate metaclasses, classes an
On 11/15/05, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This question came out of a joking comment on IRC, but it's a serious
> concern. Can chained buts be optimized, or must the compiler strictly
> create intermediate metaclasses, classes and objects in the following:
>
> my $a = $b but C
