Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
* demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> [2012-01-25T10:51:14]
> On 24 January 2012 03:03, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:
> > * Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> [2012-01-22T17:50:54]
> >> Is the overloading pragma new enough to change without breaking things?
> >
> > Making "do { no overloading; qr{foo} }" return a Regexp=REGEXP(..) string is a
> > bug fix.
>
> Just curious, but is that a ruling-from-on-high, or is it a fact?
>
> I really do wonder if no overloading in earlier perls would have
> behaved as you describe.
>
> This is of course totally orthagonal to this being a bug.
In 5.10.1, overloading.pm existed and Regexp were still SCALAR. "no
overloading" did not get you the StrVal. This, I say, was a bug, too.
It is not a regression or typo in the source, but a bad behavior to be fixed.
--
rjbs
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next