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]; }
... 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.
Examine what is said, not who speaks.
In reply to Re: Re^4: Micro optimisations can pay off, and needn't be a maintenance problem (I don't believe it)
by BrowserUk
in thread Micro optimisations can pay off, and needn't be a maintenance problem
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |