Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2010
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 17:52, karl williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote: > I asked Yves privately about this, and he wonders if it is worth trying to > not break constructs like '/foo/lt +2' I don't think it's worth it. We should just pick the modifier letters that make sense and not bend over backwards to be backwards compatible with a *very* small amount of code out there. We have to weigh that against all the people that have to recall the name of these modifiers in the future. The /k => /p thing was unfortunate enough, but that was for different reasons. Did we even consider breaking /foo/p() back then? Not that I recall.Thread Previous