develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2012

Re: Why the alarmism? (was: What happened to the whole "small core"idea?)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Jesse Luehrs
October 29, 2012 03:16
Re: Why the alarmism? (was: What happened to the whole "small core"idea?)
Message ID:
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 <> [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]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]

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

Is this the case, or not? Was I actually missing us not actually having
a consensus on this issue?


Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About