develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2012

Re: pop @INC (".")

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Aristotle Pagaltzis
Date:
March 9, 2012 01:33
Subject:
Re: pop @INC (".")
Message ID:
20120309093342.GA7109@fernweh.plasmasturm.org
* demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> [2012-03-09 08:30]:
> We are absolutely NOT chained to support everything we supported in
> the past. We tend to do so, and certainly much prefer to do so, but we
> are not obliged to do so. If breaking backwards compatibility is in
> the best interest of Perl then that is what we will do.

Personally I am willing to update code of mine if necessary. (Certainly
I have no expectations of running code from perl3 unchanged. :-))

I worry far more about the failure modes of breakage from incompatible
changes. Quiet and subtle changes in behaviour should be avoided at all
cost. Loud failures with clear diagnostics OTOH I mind very little, esp.
if they affect only a limited amount of code.

I am not sure where this change would fall on the scales of subtlety and
magnitude…

… if it were even being proposed as a new default! I do not understand
the level of controversy over a mere Configure *option* here.

I *would* like to caution that this option may prove an attractive
nuisance to some vendor who might ship a perl with it enabled out of
some notion of security-mindedness, which may then exert pressure on the
wider Perl ecosystem to “fix” code. That and not really anything else
concerns me. I would hope that can be countered by clearly marking the
option as officially inadvisable and if possible by somehow sticking it
in a disused lavatory, but I am not sure that will work and we may end
up needing another “$vendorX ships a broken perl” shit-storm before word
of the official position gets around.

So I don’t know.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About