Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2008
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:53:44AM +0100, Vincent Pit wrote: > > That argument is basically "new feature aren't worthwhile unless they > > include $other_specific_new_feature". That sort of reasoning is a great > > way to shoot down anything new. And that's...not really what perl needs > > right now ;) > > Well then, that argument is basically "new things are worthwile as long > as they give the impression the beast is still moving". Jesse doesn't need my help, but I really must say that this reply makes a logical(?) leap of such magnitude that I'm quite surprised it didn't land on an entirely different mailing list. A new feature is not useless PR just because it does not include the thing you, personally, would most like. Notational convenience has value; a highly convenient syntax for naming and (roughly) validating parameters is hardly worthless. > I didn't say that just to be negative : if it's not part of the plan, that > nobody else implements it and that I've the tuits and the abilities, be > sure that I'll try to hack it in. Ah, well, why didn't you say that to begin with? :-) I have no reason to actively reject aliasing; it's a nice feature and, in the 'rw' case, it's a SMOP based on a couple of different CPAN modules. You should be aware, however, that _efficient_ _read-only_ aliasing - which is the Perl 6 default - may be a high-wire act in Perl 5's core. I would not be surprised if only 5.12 could support it. -- Chip Salzenberg twitter:chipsalz "UTOPIA PLANITIA IS IN ORBIT is the new HAN SHOT FIRST" - Crisper Than ThouThread Previous | Thread Next