Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2010
On 13 July 2010 20:26, David Golden <xdaveg@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> 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). Agree. yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next