Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I thought about doing this a while ago. Another advantage being that you could get around perl's crappy OO system by using proper structs.

    Unfortunately I stopped at the "thinking" stage :-/
  • So how would it work? Let's say I do:

      use Class::XSMethodMaker
         get_set => [qw(foo bar)];

    Does this mean that XS code for foo() and bar() are generated and compiled on the fly? Or does it just do what Class::MethodMaker does and generate closures bound to *foo and *bar? Can you generate a closure in XS which closes around C code?


    • Tough question. One possible solution is pregenerating XS code given a list of fields. Another even generating C code on fly what should not be very hard using Inline::C. Anyway it doesn't seem a proper way to me and I'd like to be able simulate closures in C code. No idea how though. Not sure that it is even possible.

      Ilya Martynov ( [])

  • I was always under the impression that perl method dispatch was what caused things to take such a long time. If that's the case, then surely having methods execute faster once they've been dispatched to, wouldn't help much.

    Or am I missing the point (or should that be the profile?) here?


    • Perl method dispatch is slow but perl code for accessors is not fast also. Here an example (one accessor is implemented in Perl and another in C with help of Inline::C):

      use Benchmark;

      my $obj = A->new;

      &nb sp;         { pure_perl => sub { $obj->field1($obj->field1) },
                  inline_c  => sub { $obj->field2($obj->field2) }


      Ilya Martynov ( [])