Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2011
Mark Overmeer wrote:
> No, what I meant is my other remarks about the module as a whole.
[ … ]
Oh.
Thank you *very* much for so clearly laying out the concerns you
see. I think you make excellent points. Some of those points
merit individual responses. I don't have the time just right now
to lay those all out, but I broadly agree with how your thinking
runs on these.
My only immediate thought is that compatibility concerns might
be addressable through a new, optional configuration option
in the import list, if need be.
> So: above is my wish. I would like to hear your (and other
> peoples) feeling towards implementing one or more of these
> changes before I produce patch-sets for them.
> This could be ready within a week from now (simply removing
> most code, rewrite of the manpage is the real task) But I can
> do other things with my time if nobody cares...
I do hope that it isn't the case that nobody cares!
I am of two minds about POSIX matters:
* I sometimes think of POSIX as a stuffy old legacy standard.
* I often rely on conforming POSIX behavior with a lot of
Unixy semantics, probably more frequently than I realize.
The glaring exception to my second point is in character operations,
where Unicode has to my mind completely supplanted POSIX in all regards.
Perhaps that's where the first point comes from.
So I'm not sure that I have a sentiment toward POSIX that's entirely
self-consistent. That suggests I haven't thought about it enough,
which is why I'm hesitant to offer strong opinions.
You on the other hand seem to have it in your headspace right now,
and it would be a shame to lose those insights and possible future
direction out of the *apparent* casual disregard of Warnocked proposals.
--tom
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next