Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2012
Interesting, my mail to the list itself got eaten... anyway
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:42:05AM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> [2012-08-29T09:00:47]
> > My 2c on this last point. The fact that you are having the same discussion
> > repeatedly over the course of a year indicates that the definition of this
> > feature does not "collapse" to a straightforward set of semantics, no matter
> > how many times you reexamine it. Combine this with the general drive to make
> > perl5 *less* ambiguous - and all of a sudden FC's suggestion seems the
> > sanest of all so far.
>
> So far, my entire experience has been that it *does* collapse into a
> straightforward set of semantics. I proposed them in 2011 and again in 2012.
> The discussion has largely been "let's add more cases," but those fail under
> the weight of their complexity.
This is so much like US congress ;)))
> So, I don't think the current ~~/when proposal introduces serious ambiguity. I
> think if it gets rejected, it will be because its simplicity ends up meaning it
> brings too little utility to the table for the cost.
I do not feel this is actually the spirit of this thread. If indeed all we
are still talking about is this:
> ## The New ~~ Operator
>
> $a $b Meaning
> ======= ======= ======================
> Any undef ! defined $a
> Any ~~-overloaded ~~ overloading is used
> Any Regexp, qr-ol $a =~ $b
> Any CodeRef, &{}-ol $b->($a)
> Any Any fatal
Then perhaps it would be beneficial to start *yet another* thread to
explicitly solicit votes on the utility of such a change, with *no*
modifications. A "take it or leave it" call for ++ or --.
In case this thread doesn't materialize, my yet another 2c on this issue
alone: For me personally having an extra operator to service the above table
is madness, but then again I feel the same about the utility of //=
>
> I certainly do agree with the implicit suggestion that it would be insane to be
> having this discussion again in 2013. ;)
Right, and I am glad we are on the same page here. Regardless of the
technical merits, please, by all means, whatever happens, do not give up
until some sort of way moving forward is actually enacted (just agreeing on
something is not sufficient on p5p).
rjbs++
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next