develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2013

Re: postfix dereference syntax

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Aristotle Pagaltzis
September 1, 2013 19:55
Re: postfix dereference syntax
Message ID:
* Brian Fraser <> [2013-08-30 18:10]:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <>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.

Aristotle Pagaltzis // <>

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About