Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2009
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:47:45PM +0100, demerphq wrote: > 2009/12/9 Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org>: > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 05:21:54PM -0500, jesse wrote: > > > >> Talking to Nicholas about my concerns, he suggested that many of these > >> problems would go away if legacy directives always defaulted to enabled. > > > > With a slightly more "exciting" view, that I don't know Jesse's opinion on, > > that the intent is that specific legacy behaviours will change, by in the > > next major release warning, and the one after that not being the default. > > > > Although thinking more about that, it means that "legacy" would be slightly > > hairy, in that the default enabled subset would be different on different > > (future) major releases. I don't know if that's too hard to explain and teach. > > I am firmly convinced the only sane solution is modifiers. I very much liked your modifier plan when you described it to me. I _can_ see a desire to update Perl's default semantics for this or some other core feature. There are certainly historical decisions that I'd love to see rectified, as they are clearly bugs. What I worry about at night[1] is breaking bugward-compatibility. I don't want 20% of CPAN breaking needlessly on my watch. If we're going to "fix" default semantics, it is imperative that users need to declare a desire for the new behavior. -Jesse [1] Terrifyingly, the dream I remember having as I woke up this morning was about release engineering 5.12.0. Really.[2] [2] Does this job come with health insurance? Does that insurance include coverage for psychological care or psychoactive medication?Thread Previous | Thread Next