Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:24:43PM +0200, Robert Sedlacek wrote: > On Sat, 2012-10-27 at 01:41 +1100, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > > Let's focus on sub signatures for a bit. I've read every thread about > > them. Peter Martin's work kicks ass. The speedups are tangible which is > > even more awesome. Yet the whole proposal seems to be set up “It either > > happens in core or it doesn't happen at all”. Why? What prevents the > > core from exposing the correct-level hooks, have *these* hooks unit > > tested, and relegate the syntax extension mucking to CPAN? I do not > > think performance is an issue – after all linked C is linked C. > > Maintainability can't be a problem either – if anything it will be > > awesome to have a well factored boundary that will make a performant > > CPAN module for such extensions possible. Perhaps testing, but with > > CPAN-wide smoking the way we do today, this *also* isn't a problem. > > For me, it's because at one point I'd also like to be able to use these > features in pure-perl modules. This is an interesting stance to take... I fail to see the appeal of pure-perl to establishments where upgrading perl is not an issue. I can not think of a situation where one can expect a recent perl while at the same time not having access to XS. Please tell me what am I missing. > > > Furthermore, and this is what baffles me most – I do not seem to be > > alone in this sentiment. I am a long-time p5p observer. I do not > > participate in p5p dev directly, and even temporarily stepped away from > > CPAN this past year. Yet I still go to conferences and meet people, some > > of them prominent p5p figures. An overwhelming majority of these folks > > flat out stated in a private conversation that adding more syntax to > > Perl 5 is not the way to go. Even some members of the Moose cabal have > > agreed with me in private that having compile-time acting signatures > > prototyped on CPAN first is the sane way forward. Yet when something of > > such magnitude is brought up to the list, the general response from > > these *same* folks is <crickets>. Furthermore if one reads more into the > > threads gems like the following pop up: > > But this feature has been prototyped on CPAN in various forms. It has not, see my reply to Aristotle, which should show up within an hour. CheersThread Previous | Thread Next