Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:53:14PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> [2012-10-27 10:35]: > > 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? > > Why indeed? Why does it seem that way? Several of the replies in this thread took issue with my perceived alarmism. I think it is constructive to present a couple specific examples from former postings, which (while in context) gave me the above overall impression. I am *not* doing this to single out specific porters to be pillored, I am simply pointing out what makes me go "fuckity fuck, Perl is about to drive off a cliff *again*" "If someone (yes, I'm volunteering) were to do the work to allow named parameters in prototypes, would there be support for adding it to core?"[1] "... I just don't want that discussion to hold up the core feature (since there's no reason for it to)."[2] "You say "define the syntax for denoting them" like it's so easy, but syntax arguments on p5p basically always take months, especially if there is no preapproved consensus. I don't want this feature to be blocked on that kind of thing, because that gives a good chance of it just never happening at all (like it has every singe previous time it has been brought up)."[3] "We have a relatively uncontroversial base set of features that I don't want to see die just because we can't figure out a new syntax for things. We can work out the new syntax once the base feature is already in place."[4] [1] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2012/06/msg188869.html [2] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2012/09/msg191780.html [3] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2012/09/msg191808.html [4] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2012/09/msg191811.htmlThread Previous | Thread Next