Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2009
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 02:40:30PM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > 2009/10/27 Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org>: > > * Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de> [2009-10-27T08:45:18] > >> * George Greer <perl@greerga.m-l.org> [2009-10-27 13:15]: > >> > I'd perhaps use it as a "no stringify;" (like "no indirect;") > >> > >> A better name might be something like `no refconv;` (which would > >> include preventing numeric operations on numified references). > > > > I believe, but have not Googled, that MJD proposed this some time ago as C< no > > strict 'deref' >. > > No, he proposed it as C<use strict 'refs'> : > http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2007-12/msg00924.html > and suggested making an exception for hash keys. > > I think that it should be added in a new pragma. > > If we add a new strict subpragma, like C<use strict > "stringificationofrefs">, we'll have problems, because people will > want to disable it locally by doing C<use strict; no strict > "stringificationofrefs">, and that would be a fatal error on earlier > perls. I would prefer a new pragma as well, but I don't really understand your argument. After all, if it's added in a new pragma, people will write 'use newpragma', and that will fail on older perls as well, won't it? > If we add it directly in strict-refs, we loose some granularity. Also > that would make C<use strict> more strict that it used to be -- that's > not the 1st time that would happen, but strictures were in the past > only made strictier by little steps. I it were to be added to 'strict-refs' directly, I would stop using strict refs in my code. AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next