Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2008
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 02:49:51PM +0200, Roland Giersig wrote: > Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: >> 2008/7/29 Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>: >>> We can discourage the unconsidered use of magic ARGV with a >>> warning. This would be the exact same strategy that C compilers >>> followed WRT `gets`, which it seems to me worked well for C. It >>> also seems to me that the people who are certain enough that they >>> want this feature are also people who won't shy away from muting >>> a warning. >> >> Recapitulating what was proposed by you, we are getting to : >> * not changing <> >> * introducing new, safer <<>> (or «» if I may joke about the >> utf8-cleanliness of the tokeniser) >> * a feature or a pragma then becomes not useful >> * a way to extend ARGV's magic would be nice, but needs not to be in the core > > Sounds good, but leaves the issue of fixing <> (which is important > IMHO). How about this: [ Proposal to change the meaning of <> ] > This approach means that people have plenty of time to adapt their apps > if they really rely on magical behaviour by either changing '<>' to > '<<>>' or adding 'use v5.x'. If they do nothing, their apps just become > a little bit safer. Eh, the argument Aristotle and I used, and Rafael agrees with isn't that programs will break with newer versions of Perl, it's that programs written to be safe in 5.12 (or whenever <> defaults to 3-arg), become unsafe when run with an older perl. But if you leave <> as is, and use <<>> for 3-arg open, a program using safe opens won't run on a perl that doesn't have the feature. Surely you must agree that a program is safer if it refuses to run on a perl that doesn't use 3-arg open than a program that silently uses 2-arg open? AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next