Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2011
On 12/06/2011 10:35 AM, Johan Vromans wrote: > Ricardo Signes<perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> writes: > >> I am torn on experimental.pm, but that's not the important part. The >> important part is using the feature mechanism for features not found >> in any group to make them easier to test, with the freedom to easily >> remove them later. > > We can already do this. There's no hard requirement that features must > be part of a release set, so it is possible to add features that are > never automatically or implicitly enabled. I think the important bit of my original suggestion was that it contained a clearly visible label saying that what you're requesting is experimental. Whether that's exposed as a separate pragma name (with the nicer syntax and small associated cognitive overhead) or a prefix to the feature name I don't care. That, and the fact that the experimental stuff can be yanked out and we don't provide any guarantees. --SteffenThread Previous | Thread Next