Bill Moseley wrote:
Ok, back to premature optimization for a second...
I'm using macros quite a bit these days. It's often
noted that it's more efficient to use PROCESS over INCLUDE due
to the localization of INCLUDE.
IIRC, MACRO only localizes the variables passed in, right?
I think that is wrong. Here's a snippet of complied code for a macro. (From a
previous email of yours actually :) [Subject: Process vs Macro]).
my $stash = $context->localise($params);
eval {
#line 0 "input file handle"
$output .= ("Var is '" . $stash->get('var') . "'\n");
};
$stash = $context->delocalise();
The stash appears to be completely localized right there. The params are just
included in the new stash.
Template::Context::localise calls $self->{ STASH }->clone(@_);
Template::Stash::clone creates a copy of the stash. (At least in the version I
checked.)
So I'd say that the overhead for MACRO is the same as INCLUDE in regards to the
localization.
-- Josh
_______________________________________________
templates mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
