Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:52:56PM +1100, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > 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.html Since this post appears to be targeted at me, I'll just respond by saying that I was pushing for sub signatures because I honestly thought, based on all of the discussions that I have personally had with people, that the idea that we wanted sub signatures in core was basically universally accepted. If that's actually not the case, there's not really much of a point for me to continue pursuing this - I obviously don't want to force things into the language that people actually don't want. Is this the case, or not? Was I actually missing us not actually having a consensus on this issue? -doyThread Previous | Thread Next