Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2011
On Sep 13, 2011, at 8:04 AM, David Golden wrote: > > This all makes me wonder if the backwards semantics promise needs to > be more carefully scoped (no pun intended) to a more manageable set of > behaviors. For example, I could see limiting the guarantee to syntax > -- thus ensuring that old cold still *compiles* on new Perl, but not > promising that it would have the exact same behaviors. That's not > sufficient (e.g. promising the same layers on filehandles is probably > necessary) -- but it would be a start. > > I think it might be easier (wiser?) to explicitly include things into > the promise as they seem feasibly rather than make a blanket promise > and then give exceptions. Hrm. To me, that feels a lot like what we've already been doing. > > -- DavidThread Previous | Thread Next