develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2010

Re: [perl #76438] peephole optimiser could prune more dead code

Thread Previous | Thread Next
July 14, 2010 00:41
Re: [perl #76438] peephole optimiser could prune more dead code
Message ID:
On 13 July 2010 20:26, David Golden <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Ben Morrow <> wrote:
>> has DWIM forever (probably since perl 1). I'm not saying we *cannot*
>> change it, just that any change needs to be either only within the scope
>> of a lexical pragma or to go through a full deprecation cycle with
>> mandatory warnings before it changes.
> I disagree.
> For anything which is *documented* as "undefined" (even when we mean
> "unspecified") we should feel free to change whenever we think the
> benefits outweigh the costs, without any recourse to a deprecation
> cycle.

I agree with this. However we would have to document that it might
have changed and caused back-compat issues.

> Fo anything which is *undocumented* (but that people have come to rely
> on), we should not change without a deprecation cycle (short of a
> security vulnerability, anyway).



perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About