Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2013
* Brian Fraser <fraserbn@gmail.com> [2013-08-30 18:10]: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>wrote: > > 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. > > __SUB__? s///r? The callchecker? \&CORE::? Not saying that you don't > have a point, but the picture is nowhere near as grim as you've > depicted it. (It's too early to tell for my personal favorite, > /(?[])/) I was talking about major language features, not *all* features. Of the ones you listed, I would maybe count \&CORE:: as such. (And didn’t even that take a while to iron out properly, or is my memory spotty there? Granted it did eventually work out and so far seems to have held up as a design.) The callchecker is important too, but it’s not really at the level of language design. Note how it took a few tries to come up with the right mechanism (on the way there was the keywording plugging and initially it all started on CPAN with copypasting the parser) – and how iterating was feasible precisely because it sits outside the language proper. The other features you listed are minor additions IMO. Of *those*, many have succeeded – and I never argued otherwise. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next