Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2011
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:50:13AM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: > On 11/30/2011 06:12 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >But one thing I'm not going to be doing in the future is asking for > >documentation comments like these on p5p unless I'm really interested > >in the finer details of how various people feel when they use > >different synonymous built-in operators. > > > >The text in this thread is probably several times over the amount of > >text we have covering for and foreach. Imagine if we were able to > >channel all the effort we now spend on talking about how strongly we > >fell about some part of the docs into actually improving them. > > It may be because some of us don't feel that the documents are > broken or that they need to be fixed. > > If discussion is provoked it could be because people don't agree > with the change. > > Personally - I've actually referred people to these exact documents > on this exact subject before and pointed out the apparent > inconsistency in order to explain to people who were unaware that > yes, indeed, the use of "for" is both valid and has justification in > the form of actual authoritative examples. I thought the > documentation was fine as is. > > Proposing to change it, and then in response to discussion > concluding that in the future changes should be made without > discussion, just seems like a step away from trying to understand > and care what the community thinks. Change for the sake of change. I'm pretty sure that adding a line to the documentation saying "for and foreach are actually the same thing" won't make them any less clear in a situation like that. That's the only thing that this patch did, and I can't imagine any reason why it would be controversial. -doyThread Previous | Thread Next