develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2003

Re: [perl #24250] "return" required in some anonymous closures

From:
Dave Mitchell
Date:
October 21, 2003 13:34
Subject:
Re: [perl #24250] "return" required in some anonymous closures
Message ID:
20031021203424.GF10005@fdgroup.com
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:14:48PM +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> At 12:54 -0700 10/21/03, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> > > If any cleverer ways are devised of handling large numbers of imported
> >> constants, a la POSIX, then Export.pm and/or constant.pm can be hacked
> > > to accomodate them.
> >That doesn't sound like something to do for 5.8.2 if released in a few
> >weeks.  How doable would it be to give a warning for "const" padsv
> >anon subs, and just have constant.pm turn off the warning?
> 
> The way I understand it now, is that the check for making this 
> special case is somehow wrong.  How difficult would it be to add a 
> check there that it would do the optimization if the current package 
> is "constant.pm" ?  And just not do the optimization otherwise?
> 
> Just as a stopgap for now...

In the medium-term, I want to remove the sub(){$x} feature from Perl,
and also make constant.pm do it another way. Both are relatively easy to
do (although in the longer term there may be even cleverer ways of doing
it in constant.pm that would be harder to do but more efficient).
However, in the short term (ie for 5.8.2), neither of these changes should
happen (I'm not even sure if they should happen in any 5.8.x release).

So the only real question for 5.8.2 is whether we want to add a
deprecation warning for the feature we added (undocumented) in 5.8.0
and which we intend to remove in 5.10.0 (conscensus permitting).

Dave.

-- 
"There's something wrong with our bloody ships today, Chatfield."
Admiral Beatty at the Battle of Jutland, 31st May 1916.



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