Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:22:06PM +0100, demerphq wrote: > I agree mostly. But I think this a balance issue. We have multiple > priorities, and whatever mechanism we choose needs to satisfy as many > of those priorities as possible. > > I think we need to: > > a) inform the user that their script will break in a future release of Perl. > b) do so in a way that ensures a high level of compliance > c) do so in a way that ensures a low of level of negative consequences > for the user. > d) do so in a way that is cost-effective from the point of view of > developer investment. Yes > I personally think that our current strategy satisfies a, b, and d, > but does not at all, in any way, satisfy c. > > I believe my proposal satisfies c without jeopardizing a b or d. Yes > So as long as we don't have an alternative strategy then I believe > that what I proposed is a reasonable middle ground. Not sure how we might go about implementing it. Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next