Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2014
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:27:34AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 25 July 2014 05:13, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:
>
> > I like the feature, but I think it might be too small a change to pick up
> > a new
> > operator. What about a pragma/feature?
> >
>
> +1 on pragma/featurizing it.
>
> I'm half of the mind that <> allowing pipe opens constitutes a kind of bug
> in itself.
>
> So a lexical pragma that turns on/off that behavior seems more sensible
> than new syntax, and once we do that, we can discuss whether or not the
> pragma should default on/off somehow in a future perl.
-1 here.
People don't like magic open because you can't see what you're getting.
Disabling this with a feature means, you're disabling it with something
you don't see.
while (<>) {
... # Magic open or not?
}
Whether or not it's a magic open is something you can't see locally.
You'd have to scroll the file to see whether a feature is active or not.
while (<<>>) {
... # Obvious
}
Note 1: I'm well aware this is not something specific about <>/<<>>, but
that it's general uneasyness I have with features (or pragmas)
controlling behaviour. It's often too much "action in a distance"
for my liking. (Pragmas also means that whenever you explain something
about a construct, you always have to put a disclaimer there about
the pragmas affecting the construct -- it doesn't make it easier
to learn or teach the language).
Note 2: Having said that, to eliminate the magicness of open(), we got
3-arg open(), instead of controlling it with a pragma.
Note 3: (To ease the feeling of the pumpkin): Instead of seeing '<<>>' as
a new operator, just see it as the '<>' operator with a special
cased operand.
Abigail
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next