Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
On 29 October 2012 11:33, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> wrote:
> 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
If you feel that this feature is insufficiently thought out could you
please summarize the feature as proposed, and the issues that emerge
around it on some kind of wiki somewhere?
Then you can point everyone to the wiki and we can all read it and
review the issues and respond to them in some kind of crowd sourced
specification proposal?
Switching to a different medium I think would remove a lot of the
emotion from this process.
Once the specification document with its pros and cons is in a
relatively stable form then the pumpking and his advisors can make
some decisions about this all in a reasonable way.
Cheers,
yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next