Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2012
* Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> [2012-06-25T20:38:46] > It seems open to change. The question is: what's the cost, and what's the > benefit? I think the feature seems low in both cost and benefit, with the key difference that once we allow "my();" we will be hard pressed to disallow it later, if we realize we should, as we'll be breaking something. I'm not entirely opposed to breaking code at the edges of sanity, but it sounds like there's very little practical argument to make this edge case permitted. Allowing "my()" won't really make it act like "normal" built-ins. It will make it a little more like one, but not enough to be worth even the relatively small risk of future headaches. As for the "this was made legal in 1999, but failed because of a separate issue," that may be the case, but I don't believe it was really done deliberately. I've reviewed the (quite enjoyable*) p5p archives from that summer of 1999, and I don't think this particular change was even noticed. Further, it was made as part of adding subroutine attributes, which are hardly something we look back on as one of our best designs. * I particularly enjoyed Tom's notes on Python at http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/1999-08/msg00743.html and then all the replies. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next