Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2010
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:15:43AM +0100, Zefram wrote: > Nicholas Clark wrote: > >Do we know which change caused this warning to start? > > Yes, it's 6fb472bab4fadd0ae2ca9624b74596afab4fb8cb, much discussed on > a couple of other threads. Currently we're awaiting a consensus on > the ideal extent of this deprecation. Main options are: (a) any dot > immediately after integer literal except where it's part of a ".." (as > currently implemented); (b) dot immediately after integer literal where > the dot is immediately followed by alphanumeric; (c) no deprecation > (status quo ante). The option selected here determines the eventual > convenience of hex/oct/bin fractional literal syntax. To my mind (b) seems better than (a). Given that (a) is causing warnings in existing, valid, (mostly) sane code. Secondly, more generally, I think it would very useful if there were a way to test (or at least smoke) blead with all deprecation "warnings" as errors. That way would ensure that we aren't in a state of "do as I say, not as I do" Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next