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

Re: [perl #120047] perl should enable "$_" for use before calling subs

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Leon Timmermans
Date:
September 30, 2013 13:21
Subject:
Re: [perl #120047] perl should enable "$_" for use before calling subs
Message ID:
CAHhgV8iJA19xvAZednnVRLdHJFs_dnCqX9j-njX-uDzQ05yArQ@mail.gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Linda Walsh via RT <
perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:

> I am?  I thought I was volunteering engineer design to fix problems -- I
> don't have any insurmountable bugs on my plate right now.  I don't have
> anything that needs fixing for my programs to work.
>

You're asking us to change a core behavior, that qualifies for asking for
our help in my book.

>
> But lets take a look at the help I've been given.  I find a bug in
> perl's I/O, and is it considered worth of getting a patch -- nope.  I
> can upgrade[sic] to the latest unstable if I want it.
>

People fixed a bug you reported, and instead of thanking them you're
complaining. This sense of entitlement is in appropriate, off-putting and
offensive.


> I ask where a patch is and am given a git version that pulls the entire
> tree and I'm supposed to go looking for what was patched among 1000's of
> lines of changes?  Vs. I use a generic name for a print.  All you have
> to do is s/P/..insert your stuff here/.. it's not like you can run it
> without putting it in a file == and 2 lines converts it all to
> Datadumper output like Ricardo wanted.
>
> So lets see, you see nothing wrong with me looking through 1000's of
> changes for your change, but me having you add 2 lines of code is being
> rude?  ... !??!??
>

If you had asked for a patch specifically, someone would have pointed you
to http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/commitdiff/b66f3475.


> That you believe that to be the case is reflective of your really
> screwed attitude regarding anything I might have touched.  That I might
> be serious isn't something that even would enter into your mind.


It did enter my mind, hence madness as first option. Quite franky, if you
really think anyone on this list would even consider having P in core, you
are completely out of touch with reality.

That
> someone might take that as being completely offensive is likely not even
> something you would consider.


Not only are we actively trying to have a leaner core, something you should
know given you've followed the list for quite some time, but also your code
is horrendous in just about any way I can imagine (and some that I
couldn't). It is in no way appropriate for core. Suggesting otherwise is
madness at best.

If you want P to just be there, then you are asking for it to be in
> CORE.  I'm just sayin'.
>

Absolutely no one other than you wants P "to just be there". We've been
consistently asking you to not use it in your bug reports. I have no idea
what made you think Ricardo was inviting it in, but the sense of
entitlement that begot your suggestion that we all should adapt to your
workflow inappropriate, off-putting and offensive.

Leon

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About