Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2011
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 04:54:16AM -0700, Klaus wrote: > On 25 oct, 17:39, je...@fsck.com (Jesse Vincent) wrote: > > > > My question is quite simple: is there any progress made on this topic > > > > since 30 may 2011 ? > > > > > No, not really. Nobody can agree on what smartmatch is meant/intended > > > to do, which to me signals a design flaw to begin with. Did the > > > original implementor know what he intended it to do? > > > > I'd argue that yes, there is some progress. Jesse Luehrs did an initial > > pass at extracting smartmatch into a module and then implementing a > > "less-smart" smartmatch designed by rjbs that could be swapped out > > lexically. > > > > I believe the right next step in the directioon of improving things > > is to figure out how to get Jesse's extraction of the core smartmatch > > implementation into core as a module. > > > > The other big bit of progress (as mentioned by others) is that we've > > actually come to grips with how horribly broken the feature is and > > how much work it's going to be to unwind it to do it right. > > I agree, it is much work to do smartmatching right. > > Is there any intention by Jesse Luehrs to make his implementation of > the "less-smart" smartmatch module available to perl5.porters (maybe > even to CPAN ?) early in the game so that it can be discussed before > it is made into a core module (or is it better to let Jesse Luehrs > write his module without interference ?) I posted links to p5p when i wrote it - the code currently lives at: https://github.com/doy/smartmatch https://github.com/doy/smartmatch-engine-core https://github.com/doy/smartmatch-engine-rjbs (and there are development releases of the first two on CPAN already). I unfortunately got swamped by work pretty quickly after writing it, and have been mostly concentrating on Stevan's MOP proposal stuff since work slowed down, so I haven't had a chance to come back to it. There are still some issues that need to be worked out with the whole concept of pragmas like that (brought up by Leon Timmermans, among others, when I was first discussing this on the list), that I'd like to discuss at some point soon - a strict "lexical scope only" interpretation isn't really enough for things like this to be fully functional, but I'm not sure what the right solution really is. I'll see if I can braindump to the list in a week or two about the thoughts I've had on the topic. -doyThread Previous | Thread Next