Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2013
* Father Chrysostomos via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> [2013-11-08T20:55:13]
> Also, do we want do foo() to have its logical behaviour of passing the return
> value of foo to do-file? Or should it be a syntax error?
>
> (The latter is the type of question we should always ask when removing a
> feature.)
Right now, the situation is already lousy:
~$ perl -Mwarnings -e 'sub z { return 0 } do z()'
Use of "do" to call subroutines is deprecated at -e line 1.
~$ perl -Mwarnings -e 'sub x { return 0 } do x()'
My assumption has always been that the 'x' operator is interfering.
Anyway, I think we're better off simply eliminating the special case of `do
SUB(LIST)`, meaning it would fall back to EXPR. On the other hand, I think
this is where the question of backcompat will come in.
If there's code with `do foo($x)` out in the wild, and it becomes equivalent to
`do(do { foo($X) })`, something stupid is going to happen somewhere. I imagine
we may be doing the world a favor by inserting a period of fatality.
--
rjbs
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next