develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2001

Re: [rrothenberg@notes.cc.sunysb.edu: longmess and shortmess? (was Re: This Week on perl5-porters)]

Thread Previous
From:
Graham Barr
Date:
July 6, 2001 00:59
Subject:
Re: [rrothenberg@notes.cc.sunysb.edu: longmess and shortmess? (was Re: This Week on perl5-porters)]
Message ID:
20010706085733.K52398@pobox.com
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 03:33:51AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 08:15:23AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > I see that as nothing more than change for the sake of change. I have seen
> > no good reason given why these names are any better than what we
> > have. 
> 
> > And as pointed out, the existing names will have to stay as aliaes
> > anyway as there is already code using them.
> 
> Two extra lines to alias *longmess = \&yodel, etc... isn't a big deal.

except that the new names are more obscure. At least the existing names
actually mean something.

> 
> > So tell me, what is the benefit of this change ?
> 
> They work better with the rest of the interface, sound neat and the

I don't see how they work any better, and sounds neat is hardly justification
for change.

> patch is already written.

Oh so now we accept things on the basis that you have already done the patch.

> And remember, this isn't quite changing the interface as adding to it.
> long/shortmess were never published.

That does not matter, people knew they were there, and have used them.

If you want to publish them, just do that. There is no reason to change the
names.

Graham.

Thread Previous


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About