Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2013
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 05:31:39PM -0700, James E Keenan via RT wrote: > On Sat Jan 05 11:20:05 2013, rjbs wrote: > > On Fri Dec 14 07:36:17 2012, nicholas wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:15:39PM -0500, Peter Martini wrote: > > > > > > > Right. Can the ticket be closed for that reason then? There is > > an > > > > implementation of a module to do this on cpan, and a note on this > > warning > > > > in the docs wouldn't hurt. > > > > > > I think fix the documentation to be clear on the "what" and the > > "why", then > > > close the ticket. > > > > When I wrote about this todo a while ago, I suggested that assigning > > to a lexical was enough > > to indicate that it was used. For example, "my $exit = Scope::Guard- > > >..." is useful, even if > > you don't mention $exit again. Similarly, "my ($self, @x) = @_" is > > not madness. > > > > This does mean that we're detecting fewer actually bogus cases. We'd > > only get variables > > declared and use never, rather than used once. (my $x;) > > > > Is that sufficiently useful to pursue? I'm not sure. > > This is the sort of ticket where, the more people think out loud about > it, the farther we get from closing it. > > My reading of the ticket leads me to believe: > > * No one is convinced we need any changes in Perl's behavior here. > > * No one is convinced of the necessity of a documentation patch -- as no > one has submitted one since the idea was first floated. I don't agree with this reasoning. Specifically treating "necessity" as implying "lack of desirability" and hence "reason to close". By that reasoning, we would close all wishlist tickets that no-one works on. > It's time to try, once again, to put this ticket out of its 13-year-old > misery. I am taking this ticket for the purpose of closing it and will > do so in 7 days unless someone submits a documentation patch. I don't agree with this. The documentation doesn't say clearly that it doesn't apply to lexicals. A documentation patch is desirable. But anyone could write it. But not everyone can hack the C code or the build system, so I prioritise my time on that. I would welcome a documentation patch that said that the warning doesn't apply to lexicals. (Or someone to tell me where the fine manual already says this) Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next