Re: OP_SIGNATURE

Dave Mitchell wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:00:08PM +0000, Zefram wrote:> > It's a messy design.  The op types are, for the most part, reasonable> > programming primitives, with simple specifications.  The signature op> > type is entirely contrary to that.  Sure, we make some exceptions for> > performance, such as padrange, but we have to strike a balance between> > performance and API cleanliness.  padrange is a decent tradeoff: a good> > bit of performance win for a small bit of API mess.  The signature op> > is way too far at the vomit-over-the-API end of the spectrum.> > This is a subjective matter on which we'll have to disagree.> NB - do you also object to my recent introduction of OP_MULTIDEREF?

I think Zefram has a point.  If you were to create signature ops in
the same way you create multideref ops, it would be a more general-
purpose optimisation that would automatically speed up any similar
code occurring in existing subs.  I would be all for implementing
it that way.