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