Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2008
* Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> [2008-04-25T07:25:48]
> Me neither. Not pointing at anyone (specifically not pointing at Jan), but I
> don't see a lot of help being offered to address this. (Even to the point of
> the people who are really keen to see 5.10.1 yesterday digging back through
> the recent mailing list archives, and summarising the discussion about given/
> when. This would be useful to get to consensus. IIRC Ricardo Signes and
> brian d foy both had useful input earlier, but there may be others.)
I'm giving a talk on 5.10's changes at OSCON, so I'm keen to find out how or
whether the issues with ~~ will be fixed.
I brought these up in December, and nothing much came of it. I posted some
tests a week ago, or so, and there were no comments.
Heck, I will even attempt patching the C (much to your future horror, I assure
you) if there is a reply as to whether the tests are accepted as indicating
what 5.10.1 should do. I guess I could just write the patch and submit it,
relying on the "patch is more likely to be accepted than question answered"
strategy, but that makes me uneasy.
The issues were:
1. $x ~~ $obj should die if object has no ~~ overload
2. $x ~~ @a should be [ any { $x ~~ $_ } @a ]
3. (no test supplied) ~~ should not be symmetrical
--
rjbs
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next