Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor implicitly

Michael Fowler <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 12:42:52PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > But now you're throwing away the kid with the bathwater.
> > 
> > 	my Dog $spot;
> > 
> > initially was syntax invented so that $spot was marked as only been ably
> > to reference a Dog, with as a result that code internally could be
> > optimized, by doing things at compile time why otherwise would need to
> > be dealt with at runtime. (use fields, as the most notable example).
> > Don't throw that away.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not throwing it away.  Nothing's preventing the
> compiler from still doing that optimization.  I'm simply tacking on
> additional meaning, that it creates a Dog object out of $spot.

You are throwing it away because your proposal means we don't get to
use the optimization in a whole bunch of places where we could before.

-- 
Piers