Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
* Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> [2012-10-28 14:45]: > But with regard to sub signatures, there's no one implementation that > seems to attract more favour than any other, and they all seem equally > sporadic in use. You don’t think there’s a catch 22 there? The situation is that all signature implementations on CPAN implement the same basics but different, sometimes conflicting sets of advanced features. I expect that overall consensus will emerge on CPAN regarding these more advanced features, blocking the implicit consensus on the basics forever. However, I am now considering whether there isn’t a way to force the issue somewhat along the lines of ribasushi’s objects, by having the core provide hooks to some particular way of doing things, and putting up one particular implementation of the basic signature syntax on CPAN which provides hooks that advanced features can be added on top of, then getting buy-in from the maintainers of two or more existing signature modules to port their stuff onto this core. The net effect won’t be much different from the course in which Peter is already heading. But it’ll address ribasushi’s concerns while also forcing the larger community’s hand on a consensus that will otherwise likely never arrive. The latter is why I have been so bullish in arguing Peter’s case: because the People’s Front of Formal Parameters argument with the Formal Parameter People’s Front has kept derailing the essential agreement. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next