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

RE: [PATCH] export store_cop_label

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
vadim.konovalov
Date:
May 27, 2011 16:22
Subject:
RE: [PATCH] export store_cop_label
Message ID:
35BF8D9716175C43BB9D67CA60CC345E2B69BF19@FRMRSSXCHMBSC2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com
Well, should I write all this situation to perlbug@perl.org more often? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konovalov, Vadim (Vadim)** CTR ** 
> [mailto:vadim.konovalov@alcatel-lucent.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 3:20 AM
> To: Aristotle Pagaltzis; perl5-porters@perl.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] export store_cop_label
> 
> > From: Aristotle Pagaltzis 
> > * Joshua ben Jore <twists@gmail.com> [2011-05-26 20:20]:
> > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Jan Dubois 
> > <jand@activestate.com> wrote:
> > > >On Wed, 25 May 2011, Joshua ben Jore wrote:
> > > >>On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jan Dubois 
> > <jand@activestate.com> wrote:
> > > >>There's utility in exposing things but not making promises
> > > >>about stable APIs. If that's the point to this change, then
> > > >>I find sympathy with it.
> > > >
> > > >I'm not sure what you are arguing for here:
> > > >
> > > >b) ALL internal non-static functions should be exported in
> > > >case some   module finds utility in them.  But unless the
> > > >function is marked   as part of the public API we reserve the
> > > >right to change at will.
> > >
> > > I tend to think Reini ought to be able to get his internal
> > > non-static function exported because he has actual utility in
> > > it. It isn't part of the public supported API so it doesn't
> > > have any promises about being stable between patch releases. We
> > > absolutely shouldn't prematurely document and fix it's behavior
> > > into stability but there's little point to preventing something
> > > useful from getting access to it.
> > 
> > That’s just how the current messy, untenable situation came about.
> 
> well,
> if we're measuring dence of messiness or untentable-o-meter in perl 
> distribution, then "store_cop_label" is far from being most 
> annoying, IMO.
> Its usage is small and limited, and is controlled over few 
> lines, unlike
> other perl code - take PerlIO or whatever.
> 
> there are inconsistencies over the years of much more weight.
> 
> Maybe I am not understanding well your point of view (due to me being
> non-English speaker)
> If this is due to my mis-understanding of your saying, please 
> correct me,
> I am lost.
> 
> Vadim.
> 
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