Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote: :On 01/30/2012 10:18 AM, Karl Williamson wrote: :> On 01/30/2012 01:06 AM, hv@crypt.org wrote: :>> I consider this deprecation risky: it may break things by being :>> misimplemented, or it may break things by introducing new warnings deep :>> in code that doesn't expect it. Further, I consider there is a non-zero :>> probability that once we try it we may find that the practice we wish :>> to deprecate is so widespread that we reconsider our approach. :>> :>> In particular, this isn't some practice that was previously dubious or :>> "always broken" - as far as I know, the norm and received wisdom has :>> always been "don't escape what doesn't require it". :>> :>> Attempting this at the start of a cycle would give us the space we need :>> to discover whether it's a really bad idea. :> :> It's not clear to me if you are referring to just the more general :> proposal to deprecate all unescaped left braces; or the more restricted :> one to deprecate those in a backslash-alpha-brace sequence. I think the argument applies to both, to different degrees. :> The former has already been marked as contentious, so will not go into :> 5.16. If the latter, then it too can not be implemented in 5.16. : :BTW, one advantage of doing either of these is that people have :complained, and their may be tickets open on (don't have time just now :to check) that if they make a typo in a {quantifier}, there's no :message. Now there would be, and we could close any of those tickets I agree the current system is suboptimally sane, and I have wished for at least the last 5 years that it had been designed slightly more restrictively from the start. The question is, I guess, what is the cost/benefit analysis of changing it now. I think we have a reasonable idea of the benefit, but so far all the information I've seen about the cost is the results of that one test run of perl itself - and that seemed pretty bad. HugoThread Previous | Thread Next