Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> [2010-08-01 22:35]: >> My alternative suggestion was to introduce a new grouping >> construct, which I tentatively called (?~sixm:) (I don't much >> like that, but there aren't many alternatives at this point), >> which *does* do what you expect; and use that for >> stringification instead. That way we change the stringification >> once, now, and then never again. > > I’m unsure about how good an idea that is. > > Presumably the defaults can change in a future version of Perl, > in which case a stringified pattern that uses this syntax will > mean different things on different Perl versions. In some cases > this will even magically do what you want, but it could equally > be a pitfall. FWIW, I have given this some thought, and came to the conclusion that Perl is almost certainly never going to change the defaults, because of the backward compatibility issues. > > Overall I think it *will* lessen difficulties overall, so it’s > probably worth having… but it will not fix the problem (of, in > the general sense, semantics versioning) so much as trade one > manifestation for another. > > Regards,Thread Previous | Thread Next