"be consistent" | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
The order of evaluation is undefined within the C spec, thus it's undefined within the Perl spec. I understand the reasoning behind this decision in C, but my question really centres upon one word in the sentance I quoted above: "thus". The most salient definition of that word in relation to that sentance is: Therefore; consequently: Does it follow that because code could be made more efficient at the C-level by not defining execution order, that the same would be true for Perl? Given that most of not all Perl opcodes are fairly heavy relative to the equivalent C code, I wonder if there is any real scope for improving efficiency at the Perl level by not defining execution order. Ultimately, I wonder if Perl 6 could define an execution order without penalty? And whether that would be a good thing to do in terms of the usability and teh principil of least surprise? Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco.
Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
In reply to Re^2: Why is the execution order of subexpressions undefined?
by BrowserUk
|
|