Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2011
* David Golden <xdaveg@gmail.com> [2011-09-02 18:20]: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: >>> I have no objection to splitting out POSIX::SigAction and >>> POSIX::SigRT into separate .pm files that are used by POSIX.pm. >>> (I.e. loading POSIX should load those also.) I would accept >>> a patch for that. >> >> What does this gain? I don't think that it simplifies anything. > > Assuming some future where POSIX is broken up in to separate > sub-modules and POSIX.pm remains just as a shell to "export > everything by default", then I think it makes sense to split up. > > E.g imagine: > > use POSIX::errno; > > If we go that way, then I can load just the errno bits without all > the rest of POSIX functions that I don't need. In a world split > out like that, then splitting out POSIX::SigActioni/RT makes sense > to me. (Though maybe they just wind up as inner packages in > a POSIX::signal module. > > I'm not advocating for that (nor am I planning to do the work), > but I'm supportive of that direction. Assuming that future I’d agree. But as long as that future hasn’t arrived it seems a pointless worsening of the present to split the packages out. The splitting can easily be done as part of the commit which brings about the future anyhow. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next