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

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

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Linda Walsh via RT
Date:
September 30, 2013 17:26
Subject:
[perl #120047] perl should enable "$_" for use before calling subs
Message ID:
rt-3.6.HEAD-31239-1380561987-302.120047-15-0@perl.org
On Mon Sep 30 06:21:46 2013, LeonT wrote:
> You're asking us to change a core behavior, that qualifies for asking for
> our help in my book.
---- 
I'm suggesting a core behavior be 'fixed'.  "Spooky actions at a
distance", like having $_ being RO or, worse, aliased when you need to
use it (which I hadn't thought of at the time)" are pox on good programming.

> If you had asked for a patch specifically, someone would have pointed you
> to http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/commitdiff/b66f3475.
-----------
I did. 
I was pointed at a git-revision that pulled the entire diff.  Check the
bug report.  


> 
> 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.
----
Quite frankly, if you can't recognize how serious I was in my initial
offering to Ricardo, you need help as much or more than I.  That I would
remotely think that this list would let me touch anything in CORE perl
would be living in a fantasy land.  This group can't even handle my
verbal input -- as as soon as I asked if they'd accept patches, they
stopped throwing back the "submit a patch line"...

It's pretty obvious that even a patch would have a hard time with the
current closed-court cabal.  


> 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.
----
Thank you!

> Absolutely no one other than you wants P "to just be there".
Did I say I **wanted** it there?  *Being willing*, on the provision
that I'd have to give it more work, and predicating it on reviews (and
updating it to my local current level), is FAR different from
**wanting**.  It would be alot of work -- just getting on CPAN was alot
of work.



> but the sense of
> entitlement that begot your suggestion that we all should adapt to
your > workflow inappropriate, off-putting and offensive.
---
By no means... I simply thought most of the people at the level I
*thought* you were, to be able substitute their own favorite print
thing.  P is alot shorter for me to type.  

Having dealt with end users (both professionally and otherwise), having
to deal with a 1 letter abbreviation for print would have been among the
least important issues and not worth of mention (as many here have
done).   A vocal few have indicated problems, but most ignore it and
focus on the problem.

Those that can't, well, you call my attitude entitlement?  Hardly -- I'm
not even allowed input into the *** that comes out as 'perl' (like the
perl 5.18 that breaks most perl progs on my computer) and requires
source modifications of every module just to get it back into
production.  You drop things like that on people and tell them "too bad,
it's what we decided, and you have no input!", isn't way beyond
entitlement -- into the prima dona stratosphere?...

I'm just trying to be like you! ;-)
(that was humor...)




---
via perlbug:  queue: perl5 status: rejected
https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=120047

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