Re: A prototype for a binding based approach to proper namespaces

[Andrea Corallo]

Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:

> On May 9, 2020 9:39:18 AM Andrea Corallo <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>> I agree with you in principle, but the fact that a pointer chase more is
>>>> negative for performance in a measurable way or not for this case should
>>>> be verified with a measure
>>>
>>> Death by a thousand cuts is something that happens to lots of real
>>> world programs. I don't want to introduce unnecessary memory
>>> indirections or branches where simple and efficient alternatives are
>>> known to exist and where they're just as good as the inefficient
>>> option.
>>
>> Exactly because we are talking of real world programs I think it should
>> be measured :)
>>
>> I'll maybe have a run using the prototype (so it will prove some
>> usefulness) and report.
>
> No, not in this case. This is something that might appear to be fine
> in isolated tests or in modules that don't get a lot of use, but the
> more people use this thing, the worse it gets, right? I don't see any
> reason to *prefer* this approach to the zero cost one. Let's not be
> slow for no benefit.

If the alternative is the read time approach I think many people think
it has disadvantages.  Are proposing a third way?

-- 
address@hidden