Re: petal include: modifier

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 12:23:23AM -0000, Simon McCaughey wrote:
> Is it basically the same as doing a static metal include? I suppose
> there must be some more overhead, an extra Petal->new call, and an
> extra ->process() call too

That's my understanding. I'm sure there's some additional overhead of
instantiating a new Petal object and run the process but would hesitate
to make any assumptions without proper benchmarking. My experience is
that intuition and computers are often at odds.


William

-- 
Knowmad Services Inc.
http://www.knowmad.com