Re^8: Why is const x const not a const?

I know that the array is there, but that doesn't convince me that those 100k scalars are built at compile time. There might just as well be a magic initializer attached to it that generates them at runtime, or at closure cloning time or whenever.

No matter how big I chose the number in the range, I can't see increased memory consumption at compile time, which is why i suspect they aren't created at compile time.

Perl 6 - second systems done right

Comment on Re^8: Why is const x const not a const?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: Why is const x const not a const? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 24, 2012 at 07:07 UTC
I know that the array is there, but that doesn't convince me that those 100k scalars are built at compile time I showed the array is created at compile-time. I showed that once the list is built, it's not freed. I showed through memory usage monitoring that the list is built at compile-time. Not sure what else you want. No matter how big I chose the number in the range, I can't see increased memory consumption at compile time, which is why i suspect they aren't created at compile time. What's your test? Are you mistakenly using `for (CONST..CONST)` instead of the range operator?	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^9: Why is const x const not a const?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 24, 2012 at 07:07 UTC

I know that the array is there, but that doesn't convince me that those 100k scalars are built at compile time

I showed the array is created at compile-time.

I showed that once the list is built, it's not freed.

I showed through memory usage monitoring that the list is built at compile-time.

Not sure what else you want.

No matter how big I chose the number in the range, I can't see increased memory consumption at compile time, which is why i suspect they aren't created at compile time.

What's your test? Are you mistakenly using for (CONST..CONST) instead of the range operator?

[reply]
[d/l]