Re: DWIM code would use Params::Validate

Here's one reason not to use Params::Validate.

The code (minus the inline stuff), in Re: Inline Subs Revisited takes just over 4 1/2 minutes to run.

Modify those subs to validate their parameters using P:V like so:

sub max {
    validate_pos( @_, { TYPE => ARRAYREF } );
    my ($list) = @_;
    my $max;
    for (@$list) {
        $max = $_ if ! defined $max || $_ > $max;
    }
    return $max;
}
[download]

And it takes almost 22 minutes.

And achieves nothing that couldn't be done with die unless ref( $list ) eq 'ARRAY';. (That costs nothing measurable.)

Its like trying get better fuel economy by adding a large, copper-wound electric motor and 50Kg of batteries to your car.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

RIP an inspiration; A true Folk's Guy

Comment on Re: DWIM code would use Params::Validate Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: DWIM code would use Params::Validate by Anonymous Monk on Apr 30, 2010 at 09:46 UTC
You can disable validation for production to avoid the hit, set VALIDATION to something true	[reply]
Re^3: DWIM code would use Params::Validate by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 30, 2010 at 12:54 UTC
And what happens to defaults if you disable validation?	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.


We don't bite newbies here... much
	PerlMonks