Not personal, nor hard. I simply responded in-kind as always.

As has been the subject of a recent thread, there are ways and ways of making a point.

With nine references to my handle, this does smack of personal to me, but I will overlook that. Your decision to abandon the chatterbox debate in mid-flow and publicly promote your point in this way ... also.

As for "finding the strength", hmm. I wonder what you are trying to imply there?

The work involved in recreating the original scenario is considerable in as much as I went on to make large scale changes to my copy of the original code. I either have to back them out, or start with that original code and try to re-create the position I arrived at when I "discovered" the ...

use constant ARG1 => 0;
...
sub something{
   $something = $_[ARG1];
}
[download]

... mechanism for using subroutine parameters directly, without giving up the benefit of meaningful names which was the entire reason for, and the only claim I intended to make in the original post.

I have started to try and re-create the original situation at which I took my rough timings, and if it doesn't prove to be too frustrating a task, I may complete it, and I may post it so that the community may indeed decide for themselves if the micro optimisations involved can pay off under some circumstances.

It was a sincere apology. I consciously tried to err on the side of assuming that I had caused more hurt. I'm rather loathe to say more as I suspect some of it will be taken badly. However, I will try one more time to soothe things a little by explaining. I'm not trying to claim that I didn't err, just to better explain my position and lack of malace toward you.

I certainly wasn't trying to abandon the chatterbox discussion. The discussion went fairly slowly and to my mind it was finished before I started writing this. I was certainly around and don't recall you asking where I'd gone or why I wasn't responding to your attempts to continue the conversation. I'm sorry if you felt I had cut the conversation off.

I didn't have anything more to add in the discussion between you and me. The node I posted was not a continuation of that discussion nor was it directed primarilly at you. I finally felt like I understood what I had previously misunderstood about your node. You said that you might be able to post the before/after code and I was looking forward to that.

If and when that code appears, I will try to find the time to address a remaining point with you that I didn't feel I could address well (yet) in our chatterbox conversation nor in my original node. Namely, what the real source of the 6-fold speed up was. If others resolve that question, then I'll be happy to read about it and otherwise stay out of it.

My original node was primarilly addressing those who read your node. I explained how I had got the wrong impression from your node and that I think that some others did as well. And I explained that some jumped to what I consider to be impossible conclusions based on those impressions. So I conveyed that you had said that giving that impression was not intentional (and I did not try to attribute any fault to you, but stated that I understand how people could get that impression) and addressed why I consider those conclusions impossible.

I was talking about what you had written and what you had said in the chatter box and so I was only trying to be polite in addressing you by handle and doing the traditional linking to it.

I was not trying to imply anything with "finding the strength" other than that I assumed it might well "be too frustrating a task", as you say.

If you have some specific constructive suggestions on how I could have better presented things, then I will certainly listen to them and try to take them to heart. I'm sure there are many ways that I could have done a better job.

I will make one attempt at a concrete, constructive suggestion to you. Although I certainly don't know you well, I get the impression that you might benefit from making an effort to worry less about whether words, actions, or feeling are directed at you personally. Perhaps a paraphrase of your worthy sig line would be appropriate:

Examine what is said, not who it is said to.

I hope you can take this suggestion in the spirit of kindness that I am offering it. Emotion is very difficult to convey and very easy to misinterpret in on-line communication. My suggestion may be way off base. If so, I apologize. It is honestly just an attempt to be helpful.

Sincere best wishes and kind regard,

                - tye