Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:51:41AM +0100, Steffen Mueller wrote:
> On 01/30/2012 03:21 AM, David Golden wrote:
>> Jesse's vision included the notion that changes should happen
>> lexically under in a declared version block, whenever possible. So in
>> this case, perhaps the deprecation warning should only occur under
>> "use v5.16"? Frankly, I think the lexical version declarations are
>> going to be horribly confusing and I question whether that's the right
>> path forward or whether a simpler policy change would be more
>> user-friendly.
>
> It seems to me like deprecation warnings should be lexical in a "use
> 5.future" enabled block IF the deprecated feature is only removed in
> "explicit 5.future enabled" code and continues to be supported
> indefinitely in older versions (whether explicit or implicit).
> Otherwise, we may as well remove the deprecated feature (after
> deprecation) entirely as barely anybody can tolerate deprecation
> warnings.
Right. But if it's going to be removed only with some feature enabled,
a new meaning will also only occur with said feature enabled.
Which means that if a subroutine is documented as "takes a pattern as
first argument", I would not be able to pass it '\w{foo}', as its meaning
will be different depending on whether the sub uses the pattern with
said feature enabled or without.
Which seems like a bad idea to me.
Abigail
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next