Slobo

Recent Actions

• Commented on Current subroutine signatures implementation contains two features which purposes are different
  Hi Yuki, thanks for your response. I am always looking to learn better software engineering techniques. I hope you don't mind me pressing for more details from you. Is it only the performance impact of arg count check that bothers...
• Commented on Current subroutine signatures implementation contains two features which purposes are different
  I'm also genuinely interested in your argument that dynamic language implies no argument checking, do you mind elaborating a bit more on it?...
• Commented on Current subroutine signatures implementation contains two features which purposes are different
  I understand the need for speed, but as benchmark above shows, you are only losing a second for every 10M calls - if you are doing anything remotely noon trivial in those subs you will not notice the time paid...

Comment Threads

• Yuki Kimoto commented on Current subroutine signatures implementation contains two features which purposes are different

  Slobo

  I don't believe correctness by argument count checking. I don't need this feature.

  There are two type people.

  Why subroutine signature forces argument count checking by default syntax?

  sub ($foo, $bar, @) is not good syntax, I don't want to use this syntax for only avoid argument count checking.

  "sub foo($x, $y)" meaning "sub foo { my ($x, $y) = @_ }" is natural expansion most people want.

  Argument count checking is next step.
  

• Yuki Kimoto commented on Current subroutine signatures implementation contains two features which purposes are different

  Slobo

  Thanks for your comment.