Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
Hi Jesse,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:16:28 -0500
Jesse Luehrs <doy@tozt.net> wrote:
> 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?
>
I can't speak for other people, but:
1. I definitely want subroutine signatures.
2. I've heard someone say that such a feature will be something that is
likely to convince people to upgrade to a new version of perl, because there
have been many complaints about the clunky syntax for writing subroutines in
Perl 5.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Understand what Open Source is - http://shlom.in/oss-fs
Mastering ‘cat’ is almost as difficult as herding cats.
— http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Mastering-Cat/
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next