Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2009
demerphq wrote: > 2009/8/27 ian.goodacre@xtra.co.nz (via RT) <perlbug-followup@perl.org>: > >> If there is a reason not to change this behavior then the behavior and >> the reason for it should be prominently documented. >> > > Leaving aside the technicalities involved, would you feel that this is > a bad choice to take? > > In other words, given that "fixing" this behaviour would probably > break /something/, yet clearly it is not in agreement wit the > documentation (i think because of optimisations) do you see any > serious problem with leaving it? > > Im curious as to how people view the trade offs involved here. > > Yves > I would probably leave the behavior as it is for two reasons: 1) Existing code might depend on it being as it is and I would break such code only with great reluctance 2) For the same reason that a failed match doesn't reset the numbered match variables (as described in perlre) Not because I like the way that it is. The rare cases where the persistence was valuable would probably be much clearer and less vulnerable (e.g. to a continue block being added to the loop) if the persistence were provided explicitly. IanThread Previous