Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2010
Thanks, applied as bf82ca4d61f02d133cd23249540eb335feffac71
Sounds like we're moving in the right direction.
David
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:31 PM, karl williamson
<public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
> David Golden wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 7:10 PM, karl williamson
>> <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is a revised patch based on people's feedback.
>>>
>>> I think it is a waste of time to worry too much about the wording of the
>>> \000 part, as I'm close to submitting patches that clean up a number of
>>> the
>>> problems, and so the wording is in flux anyway.
>>
>> After reading through the revised patch, two thoughts came to mind:
>>
>> * I'd like to see octal escapes moved to the bottom of the list. The
>> most confusing one should not be first.
>
> I agree. Revised patch attached doing this and a couple other changes; see
> below.
>>
>> * Should we just flag octal escapes as "discouraged" (note -- not
>> "deprecated") due to the legacy confusion? Are your other patches
>> coming going to fix this octal mess?
>
> The next patch adds \o{} which side steps the whole problem. Later patches
> fix the extraneous NUL in [\8], and otherwise clean up the misleading
> warnings.
>
> I guess I'll fix the misleading \x warnings as well. I'd also like to
> change \xg to not generate a NUL, but to be just 'g', but I have a feeling
> that will be a backwards compatibility issue. But to that end, I added the
> word 'currently' in describing the behavior, to put the reader on notice
> that they shouldn't be relying on that.
>
> I also changed the order so that \x{} is first. And, I realized it isn't
> just for wide characters, but any characters, and in fact we prefer it over
> \x without the braces for several reasons, discussed recently here. \x
> without the braces is only for 'narrow' or 'short' characters. I'm not sure
> which would be the better term. 'wide' and 'long' are used variously in
> other pods.
>
>
Thread Previous