Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2012
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 04:31:06PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:45:43PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:35:25PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > As far as removing it is concerned, I presume that no one is writing new > > > code in this way, and probably hasn't for a few years. So the removal > > > is a trade-off between a slight standardisation and simplification and > > > breaking backwards compatibility with some perl4 era programs. > > > > > > I would side with keeping backwards compatibility. > > > > One could fudge it (by increasing complexity) by making it warn in any > > source file using a perl 5 construction. Probably the simplest is *just* > > to set a flag if C<use> is used. > > I'm not convinced it warrants any increase in complexity, especially for > something that would still be a heuristic. No, I'm not convinced either. It's only a heuristic of "not perl 5 code" Because if it's got C<use> in it, it's a syntax error in perl 4: /usr/local/perl4/bin/perl4.036 -e 'use strict' syntax error in file /tmp/perl-erpHBaB at line 1, next 2 tokens "use strict" Execution of /tmp/perl-erpHBaB aborted due to compilation errors. so it must be perl 5 code, so it can use Pod and be happy. Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next