develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2008

Re: [PATCH] Class as a Feature (take four)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Steffen Mueller
Date:
December 16, 2008 00:41
Subject:
Re: [PATCH] Class as a Feature (take four)
Message ID:
494769C5.6040001@sneakemail.com
chromatic wrote:
> On Monday 15 December 2008 23:41:59 Steffen Mueller wrote:
> 
>> chromatic wrote:
> 
>>> That theory didn't work out very well for Tcl or Lisp.  Surely the fact
>>> that it's possible even fourteen years after the fact to give Perl 5 a
>>> little bit nicer syntax out of the box (barring the 'use feature' fiasco)
>>> has some degree of compelling to it?
>> It does. I like it. I'm not sure I'd call 'use feature' a fiasco,
>> though. There is a default feature set in effect with "use 5.X.Y" and
>> I've been advocating that... no, I'm not going to say it on the list again.
> 
> It's backwards, though.

I see where you're coming from.

[...]
> Good defaults go a long way.
> 
> Imagine if feature.pm had existed in the days of 5.6.0, and the only way to 
> get lexical filehandles was to say something like:
> 
> 	use 5.006;
> 	use feature 'lexical_filehandles';
[...]

Almost, but not quite. It would have been:

   use 5.006;

because 'lexical_filehandles' would be part of the default feature set 
for code written within the scope of 'use 5.006'.

That's exactly the middle ground I've wanted to use for the other
improvement that-must-not-be-mentioned-for-fear-of-an-eternal-flamewar.

But we're pretty off-topic now with regards to your class patch. I 
thought about this whole issue some more and feel it all comes down to 
requiring a plan. A roadmap. Where should the perl(5!) core be in five 
years given enough developer time? What happens to those plans if you 
adjust them for the very finite amount of labour available? Or let me 
rephrase:

Pumpkings, what do you *want* and expect? Surely not a single core-level 
patch that implements the whole of Moose and Perl6 on top running at the 
speed of hand-crafted assembly? If there is a plan, small steps in the 
right direction are okay. If there is no plan, only the one perfect shot 
is likely to satisfy everyone.

I'm not philosophizing here. Having an idea what is likely to be 
accepted and part of a general direction of development and what is not 
can make a big difference.

Cheers,
Steffen

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About