Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On 31 January 2012 16:00, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > 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. Hash of lines + warning message (format or something). cheers, Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next