Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
* karl williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> [2010-08-04 15:40]: > 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. Yet you *are* changing the past default right now, *in spite* of back compat issues… :-) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next