develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2011

Re: Time to update POSIX.pm?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Mark Overmeer
Date:
January 30, 2011 12:24
Subject:
Re: Time to update POSIX.pm?
Message ID:
20110130202352.GA20498@moon.overmeer.net

Duh, Abigail, you know me for at least 10 years now. Do you really
think you have to explain prototypes to me?  Same for the other people:
yes I do know *all* complications of changing it. And no, it is not
important for the requested simplification of POSIX.pm

CORE::* uses prototypes and POSIX.pm does not which is inconsequent. There
are about 50 functions from POSIX.pm which are one-to-one mapped to CORE
functions with the same name. Because of a missing prototype, they currently
behave differently. If "the perl porters" prefer that situation, then
let it be.

In my experience, all 5.* releases have broken at least some of
my modules. Adding deprecation messages, as example, do often hinder
me. For instance, I use a module which started to produce "defined %hash"
complaints. It's not my module which caused the complaint, but something
currently unmaintained. Took me hours to repair it cleanly.
Still, I think we should make those improvements with major releases.

* Abigail (abigail@abigail.be) [110130 19:39]:
> > In the common case you can.  Of course, there are situations where it
> > does not work.  A prototype of ($$)  works as well as  @_==2
> 
> Eh, no.
>     sub foo ($$) {...}
>     @arg = (1, 2);
>     foo (@arg);
> 
> isn't the same as
>     foo (1, 2);
-- 
               MarkOv

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Mark Overmeer MSc                                MARKOV Solutions
       Mark@Overmeer.net                          solutions@overmeer.net
http://Mark.Overmeer.net                   http://solutions.overmeer.net


Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About