Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Thu Jan 05 14:20:12 2012, ikegami@adaelis.com wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:43 AM, David Mertens > <dcmertens.perl@gmail.com>wrote: > > > If it is such a major complaint, how might it go about getting > changed? > > I'm new, so forgive me if this is a faux pas, but it would appear > that the > > obvious solution would be to pull the autovivification module into > core. > > After all, the module addresses the OP's concern exactly, it does > not break > > normal autovivification, and it has a 100% pass rate. > > > > So, what does it take to get something like this into core? > > > > The current (well reasoned) desire is to *remove* modules from the > perl > distribution, or at least avoid adding any new modules. > > You're saying this module works perfectly well without being bundled > into > the perl distribution, so there's no need to include it. > > - Eric true, but pre-supposes that this is not actually a bug, rather its a particular operating mode which is undesirable of has undesired side effects. as I stated earlier, I still beleive this is a bug and so disabling autovivification whether by import or in the core or other means is merely a work around and not a fix. I would love to be persuaded otherwise, but I can see no benefit to this effect in autovivification, however I can see plenty of negatives, and consider it a logical error in the expectations of how exists or defined would operate. finally whilst this module dies have, to some degree the desired effect, it is not always practical or possible to introduce external modules, leaving the only sollution in long and unnecessary work grounds if the consensus is that it's not a bug then so be it, however it seems I'm not alone in being tripped up by this side effect. --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=107528Thread Previous | Thread Next