Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> writes: > * Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> [2012-10-26T10:41:14] >> I am directly CCing a number of people ... > Please, don't. It gets me confused. I'm on the list. I read all the > mail on it. Extra copies going to folders other than the list one just > wreck my workflow. I know it's petty, and it's not a big deal, but I'd > appreciate not getting 2+ copies. Yes, please! >> "MOAR CORE FEATURES!!!". > I don't this is really a general tendency on p5p. I think that some > people want a new feature for X, some for Y, some for Z, and if you OR > all those desires together, it looks like we're opening our arms to > all kinds of new things. On the other hand, the person who wants X > doesn't want anything else, the one pining for Y will fight X and Z > tooth and nail, and the Z backer will, he swears to God, fork perl > before he lets you add W. Basically, what is missing, is a good and generic extension mechanism so it is possible to implement X, Y, Z, and W in separate modules. There has been done a lot of work on this but (apparently) it is still not mature to the extent that people can implement the desired functionality this way. I don't know the perl internals well enough to make reasonable estimates, but my guess is that it would take less effort to create such a generic extension mechanism than it takes to continuously discuss (fight over) new features. Things that such a generic extension mechanism would need to be able to do is provide the means for external (CPAN) modules that: - implement new operators, e.g,. ~~ - implement new syntax, e.g., given ... when - implement language preprocessing, e.g., macros, subroutine arguments - implement pluggable sub-languages, e.g., regex engine. - etc. I think this would solve a lot of the controversy. -- JohanThread Previous | Thread Next