Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2011
On 11/26/2011 09:00 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * David Golden<xdaveg@gmail.com> [2011-11-22T18:51:35]
>> Put differently, we should *NOT* do either of these:
>>
>> (a) *say* we autoload charnames on \N{} and then *not* have
>> charnames::viacode() be a valid function call after \N{}
>> (b) *don't say* anything about charnames, but have
>> charnames::viacode() be valid after \N{}
>
> This summarized my feelings very well, too.
>
> I would prefer if \N{} did not cause charnames::viacode (etc) to just start
> working. That is a pretty weak preference, but I prefer that functions like
> that have their module loaded explicitly. \N{}, on the other hand, is (or
> ought to be) a much more basic language feature that should always work.
>
> This would require work to provide a way to only load charnames, and not
> everything else. I know that work might not get done right now, and I think
> it's more useful to have \N{} Just Work than delay for this small point.
>
> My likely order of preference, best first:
>
> 1. using \N{} automatically loads the data needed to make it work, but
> no other functions magically become available
>
> 2. using \N{} loads charnames normally, with documentation saying something
> like "at present, using \N{} will load the charnames package, but this
> is an implementation detail subject to change; if you're using functions
> from it, C<use charnames>"
>
> 3. using \N{} loads charnames normally, and we 'fess up to it
>
Sunder scenario #1, what should happen after someone does 'no
charnames'; should it just unload the functions, or also \N{}?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next