Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 04:01:54PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * 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. This is precisely what I was advocating. I could not have summarized it better myself. I am not anti-features. I am against features which have no clear plan for an emergency backtrack. More has already been said on the subject here[1] > 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. I'd go further and claim that given the make-up of our community hand-forced consensus is the only kind you can reliably expect. What prompted my OP was the fact that no consensus was sought in the first place. TL;DR I approve your message above Cheers [1] http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2012-09/msg00485.htmlThread Previous | Thread Next