Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
[perl #109408] Documentation that refers to Perl 5 as new
Thread Next
From:
Father Chrysostomos via RT
Date:
January 30, 2012 14:54
Subject:
[perl #109408] Documentation that refers to Perl 5 as new
Message ID:
rt-3.6.HEAD-14510-1327964077-1339.109408-15-0@perl.org
On Mon Jan 30 09:31:24 2012, nicholas wrote:
> There are several places in the core Perl documentation that happily
> announce
> that something is new. New in 5.004. Even new in Perl 5.
>
> Perl 5 is not new. 5.004 is not new. I suggest that we have a policy
> on
> what "new" is, document it, and then check the documentation to
> rephrase
> away the old new. Given the plateau of 5.8.x
>
> http://www.dagolden.com/index.php/1587/visualizing-perl-5-release-
> cycles/
>
> and the still widespread deployment of 5.8.x in distributions and
> firms,
> 5.10.0 is certainly new. Even 5.8.0 might be, if we want to highlight
> things to people who are coming back to Perl having learned it a
> decade ago
> (or having "learned" it via online code or tutorials of that era)
>
>
> For starters, I think that this section near the top of perlfunc.pod
> should
> go:
>
> diff --git a/pod/perlfunc.pod b/pod/perlfunc.pod
> index 3358a39..c32c902 100644
> --- a/pod/perlfunc.pod
> +++ b/pod/perlfunc.pod
> @@ -247,22 +247,6 @@ X<time> X<date>
>
> C<gmtime>, C<localtime>, C<time>, C<times>
>
> -=item Functions new in perl5
> -X<perl5>
I’m all for removing this section
> -
> -C<abs>, C<bless>, C<break>, C<chomp>, C<chr>, C<continue>,
> C<default>,
> -C<exists>, C<formline>, C<given>, C<glob>, C<import>, C<lc>,
> C<lcfirst>,
> -C<lock>, C<map>, C<my>, C<no>, C<our>, C<prototype>, C<qr//>,
> C<qw//>, C<qx//>,
> -C<readline>, C<readpipe>, C<ref>, C<sub>*, C<sysopen>, C<tie>,
> C<tied>, C<uc>,
> -C<ucfirst>, C<untie>, C<use>, C<when>
> -
> -* C<sub> was a keyword in Perl 4, but in Perl 5 it is an
> -operator, which can be used in expressions.
> -
> -=item Functions obsoleted in perl5
> -
> -C<dbmclose>, C<dbmopen>
> -
> =back
>
> =head2 Portability
>
>
> (And I'm suggesting removing the "Functions obsoleted" too,
and this one, too.
> because I
> don't
> think that it adds any value, but it takes up screen and brain space.
> Do we
> define "obsoleted" anywhere? They've not been removed in the past 17
> years of
> Perl 5. Are we going to remove them in the next 17?)
They have even had bug fixes. They are still used.
--
Father Chrysostomos
---
via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: new
https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=109408
Thread Next