[#5563] Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>

Lately, I've been thinking about the future of ruby

44 messages 2005/08/19
[#5564] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/08/19

On 8/19/05, Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@yahoo.com> wrote:

[#5571] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/08/19

--- Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5574] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — TRANS <transfire@...> 2005/08/20

Just wanted to add a few things.

[#5581] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/08/20

On 8/19/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5583] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/08/20

Hi --

[#5585] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/08/20

--- "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

[#5609] Pathname#walk for traversing path nodes (patch) — ES <ruby-ml@...>

Here is a small addition to Pathname against 1.9, probably suited

20 messages 2005/08/22

Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods

From: SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Date: 2005-08-23 15:10:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #5650
Hi,

Eric Mahurin wrote:
> What I'm talking about above (inlining certain methods in
> Object tagged as non-overridable) wouldn't require any static
> analysis because these methods would be independent of class.
> 
> It is unfortunate that you've abandoned static analysis.  I
> think you could see huge performance improvements if you went
> that route.  I believe you could approach C/C++ performance -
> like Java is on every release.  To really go down this path,
> you would have to recompile a method for each set of classes it
> is called with (recursively).  So for one method in ruby, it
> might be compiled into many methods statically typed and
> possibly some partially or not static typed.  And you could
> also in-line in the right places easily - because you know the
> class.  Of course the big problem to all of this is redefinable
> methods.

I can't understand what you proposing (because of my English skills and 
Programming skills).  Can I get some example (pseudo code) for 
translation?  I think inlining a Ruby method is quite difficult.

-- 
SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

In This Thread