Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2010
From: Aristotle Pagaltzis
September 9, 2010 09:29
Message ID: 20100909162945.GA13876@klangraum.plasmasturm.org
* Nicholas Clark <email@example.com> [2010-08-30 11:40]:
> > For instance we have the "utf8::" namespace, we have the
> > "re::" namespace, we have several tied hash implementations,
> > etc.
> utf8. The pain
> 1: A pragma.
> 2: A namespace with visible functions. (Most of which certainly aren't good
> practice these days, and some of which never were)
> 3: A namespace used by the internals of the regexp engine.
Is the problem in the fact that the functions reside in the
`utf8` package, or in what the functions do? If the latter, how
is that an argument about the former?
> 1: A pragma
> 2: A namespace with visible functions
> That's wrong too.
I’ll echo Yves: what are the problems there’ve been, in practice?
(And if there were any, as per above about utf8: have they had to
do with with placement in the `re` package, or something else?)
* Ben Morrow <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2010-08-30 14:25]:
> And VMS::, and OS2::, and Cygwin::, and DynaLoader::, and maybe
> others I've missed. I'd say there's quite a precedent for using
> package namespaces for builtins that have been added since
> Perl 4.
And has there been any serious problem with these, systemic to
the fact that they’re placed in those particular packages?
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>