Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:16:28AM -0500, Jesse Luehrs wrote:
>
> Since this post appears to be targeted at me
It *really* isn't. Your messages just happened to be the most concise
thing to quote.
> Is this the case, or not? Was I actually missing us not actually having
> a consensus on this issue?
I will offer my 2c as an observer - there seems to be unanimous support
for the feature in general. I am confident that if voted on, the question
"wouldn't it be nice to be able to replace 'sub foo { my ($x,$y) = @_;
... }' with 'sub foo ($x, $y) {...}'"
would receive two answers either a "YES!" or a "probably a good idea".
What there doesn't seem to be any consensus on are all the semantical
and implementation details which *emerge* around this simple goal. This
is what I personally feel needs much much more work. [1] is the best way
I can explain the nature of such work in writing.
[1] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2012/10/msg194722.html
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next