Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2000
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:03 GMT, "M.J.T. Guy" wrote: >JVromans@squirrel.nl (Johan Vromans) wrote >> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@chthon.perl.com> writes: >> >> > >But it certainly ought to be documented. Patch attached. >> > >> > I like to see it documented as an error. >> >> Okay, I'll bite. This assumes the previous patch is _not_ applied. > >Errr... you seem to be missing the point at several different levels. > >i) Tom's remark was expressing approval of my patch. It might > have been phrased "I like to see that it is being documented as > an error." > >ii) In particular, my patch provided the required documentation. > >iii) Insofar as the -> operator is inadequately documented, a patch > is needed to perlop rather than perldelta. > >iv) perldelta has traditionally been used for recording changes since > previous Perl versions. But no change is being made here. > Using it to announce possible future deprecations seems > eccentric. > >v) @x->[2] and scalar(@x)->[2] shouldn't be lumped together. As > discussed on p5p long ago (pre 5.004 ?), what @x->[2] does is > deliberate, if unfortunate. Whereas having scalar(@x) > evaluate to anything other than the length of @x is a bug. FWIW, I've applied Johan's patch rather than yours. (I hardly think @x->[2] is a feature, much less scalar(@x)->[2], and I don't want to document them as such.) Sarathy gsar@ActiveState.comThread Previous | Thread Next