Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2009
> Well clearly there is some controversy now that I had not anticipated.
Indeed. I apologize if I was overly enthusiastic before I understood the
destabilizing impact.
> date crept, nay galloped, up. I can only imagine how much worse it is
> when you don't really know these volunteer participants.
No worries. My footnotes were intended as humor rather than as a cry of
pain. (Though I really did dream about 5.12 release engineering last
night.)
> I've come out of retirement to work on this glaring hole in Perl wrt
> Unicode. It was bigger than I imagined. And I would like to see it
> fixed, yesterday.
I'd love to see it fixed ten years ago. That said, I _am_ absolutely
thrilled that it's getting fixed. I just want to make sure that we don't
hurt lots of people as we do it.
> That said, it is more important to not destabilize existing code. I
> don't know what the right thing is for 5.12.
To reiterate my current thinking:
* I like the control that Yves' per-regex modifiers give us.
* I don't want to break users' legacy Perl code.
* I really do like the correct semantics you've gotten working.
Yves modifiers will give us fine-grained control but won't eliminate the
need for good defaults.
It really does sound like the small tweak to the default legacyness
value that Nicholas suggested would eliminate the contention about
default behavior. It would mean that new code that declares it
wants new semantics would get them and code that says nothing is
expecting the traditional behaviour.
How's that sound?
-Jesse
--
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next