Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2013
* Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> [2013-08-30 14:45]: > You know, I have been so consumed with faith in this feature for years > that I felt it could just drop right in. I will admit that I may be > biased. If there is consensus that all or part of this feature should > be experimental (which seems reasonable) then okay. I don’t foresee problems with postfix deref, but then I didn’t foresee the edge cases in the maximally minimal signature proposal either, which started to turn up once it was really scrutinized. The interaction between the `each @array` and `each $autoderefed` features weren’t foreseen either. Etc etc. Everyone so far has been sure that their pet feature would work great. P5p’s track record for collective piecemeal language design is… middling to put it mildly. And I don’t just mean the 5.10 disaster, it goes back way farther – think pseudohashes, say. In fact every non-trivial feature I can think back to turned out to have major caveats to work out – if it wasn’t entirely ill-conceived. We really don’t have much grounds for confidence. So I was kinda assuming that now that we have the mechanism, *all* major new features would have to make a round as an experimental feature, as a matter of policy, to avoid the kind of clusterfuck/embarrassment of the likes of smartmatch. -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next