Re: RFC 152 (v1) Replace $self in @_ with self() builtin (not $ME )

On 8/28/00 3:35 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> ...while also giving the compiler enough information to allow such
>> invocant access to execute in an optimized manner...right? C'mon,
>> I'm dying here thinking that all this (admittedly cool) stuff is
>> gonna end up giving Perl 6 even more OO overhead than Perl 5!
> 
> Use invocant won't add any runtime overhead. In fact it might save a smidgeon.

No no, you're supposed to say "I have a great plan whereby it'll be at least
2x faster!" ;)

>> (What was it in the current edition..."up to 20x slower"? *sigh*)
> 
> Out by a factor of 10! I said "20 to 50 percent slower".

Getting senile in my old age...
 
> I think they would *improve* readability. Certainly over $_[0], and
> even over:
> 
> sub method {
> my ($self, @args) = @_;
> ...
> }
> 
> I'm *forever* writing that and just it clutters up the code.

I agree, but any implicit self is nicer than the status quo, IMO.

I was talking about the hypothetical situation where you're (re)using or
modifying a bunch of code or classes written by different people and you
constantly have to be aware of which self-thingie to use in which file or
package or whatever.  Yeah, you can just glance up to the use ...
declaration, but it still seems a little like trying to make everyone
happy by avoiding the naming decision entirely.

Too much B&D for a Monday?

-John