in reply to Runtime introspection: What good is it?

This is one of those things where, “if you need it, nothing else will do.”

“Compile-time determinations” are exactly that:   they occur when the source-code is compiled and are forever-after fixed into the resulting executable. This is very efficient (and therefore, very desireable), if you know that the thing you are dealing-with truly will not change. But if there is a possibility that the thing is external to you, and therefore “beyond your control or at-least your timetable,” compile-time binding is fairly useless.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Runtime introspection: What good is it?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 08, 2008 at 19:31 UTC
    Compile-time determinations” are exactly that: they occur when the source-code is compiled and are forever-after fixed into the resulting executable.

    You're ignoring the flexibility of what constistutes "compile-time" in dynamic languages like Perl.

    See also the subthread starting at Re: Runtime introspection: What good is it? which discusses how compiled to binary (static) languages achieve dynamic language-like flexibility through the use of parsers without giving up their compile-time type correctness, or succumbing to building a run-time eval capability.

    I must admit, I'm surprised to find you, as an "planning is paramount" advocate, coming down on the side of making ad-hoc codepath descisions at run-time :)

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Meditations