Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2011
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 08:33:09PM +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Actually, I see more significant problems with Perl trying to carry all
> old semantics into all new versions. You cannot simpy make a small
> change to a built-in, you have to make a backup copy and keep it just in
> case. This is a potential maintenance nightmare.
+10
I think the devil is in the detail. If, while running under 5.20,
use v5.16;
is just about equivalent to
no feature 'list of features added in 5.18, 5.20';
then I'd be happy with that.
If it's supposed to mean "this code will run in exactly the same way as if
you have just applied the perl-5.16.0 executable against it", then I will
run away screaming.
So... do we backwardly support bug fixes where the bug fix caused a
visible change in behaviour? Even where the old behaviour was clearly wrong
and went against the documented behaviour?
Or... in my current work to fix the mess that is /(?{...})/, should
'use v5.14' cause this code:
/(?{ warn "boo" })/
to output the old-style message
boo at (re_eval 1) line 1.
rather than the new style
boo at file line N.
(where the change in message is an artifact of the fact that (?{...}) is
parsed in a completely different way now).
Etc etc...
--
But Pity stayed his hand. "It's a pity I've run out of bullets",
he thought. -- "Bored of the Rings"
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next