Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2011
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 03:33:49PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote:
> > Whereas for a new major release, if anyone upgrades without testing, and has
> > the chutzpah to send a bug report about something, my opinion is that most
> > likely it should be rejected on the basis of "you get to keep both pieces",
> > particularly if it was a documented change. Hence in major release new
> > warnings are as tolerable as any other breakage. (ie not very tolerable)
>
> I don't think it's a problem to warn on stuff that is discovered to be
> demonstrably broken.
There's broken, and there's broken.
I think it's a problem to always warn if you use a function that displays
"broken" behaviour when used in uncommon ways, or only on specific inputs.
For instance, I would not support warning on:
POSIX::exit (1);
just because
@a = (3, 4); POSIX::exit (@a)
exits with a different value than
@a = (3, 4); CORE::exit (@a)
even if we all agree that 'POSIX::exit (@foo)' is broken -- POSIX::exit will
commonly be called as POSIX::exit ($scalar) - which does not act different
from CORE::exit ($scalar).
Abigail
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next