From jwiley.psych at gmail.com  Sun Oct  2 01:52:36 2011
From: jwiley.psych at gmail.com (Joshua Wiley)
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 16:52:36 -0700
Subject: [Rd] Increase transparency: suggestion on how to avoid
 namespaces and/or unnecessary overwrites of existing functions
In-Reply-To: <4E8790B9.3030500@gmail.com>
References: <4E53F02F.106@googlemail.com> <4E874909.7060308@gmail.com>
	<CADUbQ5giQwm7bS6Xx+tYwLVKOEvJ7yy66rUTJ_oimF0YUcJWPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E8790B9.3030500@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANz9Z_JpcPWLOTfTTuehWeqH0Kt46fV2vEEbn5431qDVqPE_Hw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11-10-01 5:14 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:
[snip]
>> Except that namespace::foo should be assigned to another local
>> variable instead of using package::foo in a tight loop, because
>> repeated calls to "::" can introduce a significant performance
>> penalty. (This has been discussed in another thread.)
>
> That's good advice too.
>
> Duncan Murdoch

Is this performance hit the sort of thing that byte compiling would
help with, or am I misunderstanding its use?



-- 
Joshua Wiley
Ph.D. Student, Health Psychology
Programmer Analyst II, ATS Statistical Consulting Group
University of California, Los Angeles
https://joshuawiley.com/



[Rd] Increase transparency: suggestion on how to avoid namespaces and/or unnecessary overwrites of existing functions
Joshua Wiley