Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2010
On 15 July 2010 01:12, Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:39:35AM +0200, demerphq wrote: >> Whomever decided that >> >> $a . $a >> >> is specified when $a is tied and returns a different value each fetch >> had forgotten this fact. > > You'll have to argue that with Hugo then! > > commit 8d6d96c1bf85fd984f18f84ea834be52b168c812 > Author: Hugo van der Sanden <hv@crypt.org> > AuthorDate: Sat May 26 18:05:12 2001 +0100 > Commit: Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@iki.fi> > CommitDate: Sat May 26 22:31:46 2001 +0000 > > Re: 5.6.*, bleadperl: bugs in pp_concat > Message-Id: <200105261605.RAA12295@crypt.compulink.co.uk> I'm not sure what your point is? Simply because Hugo wrote/pushed a patch that somehow proves something? I don't think so. Just because a commiter didn't think through the full ramifications of a patch, or even knew of the ramifications but still went through with it on the grounds of providing "least worst" behaviour doesn't make that patch law over long existing documentation. The documentation for ++ is pretty clear. If the concatenation of a tied variable that mutates is well specified, then it would mean that one can take a construct documented to have unspecified behaviour wrap it up in a tie to resolve the unspecifiedness, which seems to me to be simply absurd. Thus the onus is not on me to show why this is unspecified, as the docs say it is, the onus instead is on those who disagree with the documentation to find a way to get out of this logical absurdity. I have to say that I'm struggling to see why what you just posted doesn't essentially boil down to a position that the docs are meaningless and that whatever is committed is right. If so then you might as well stop fixing those "bugs" as they aren't really "bugs" then are they? I'm pretty sure you don't think this, so why do you think that this patch is different? cheers, Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next