Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2014
* demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> [2014-07-25T02:13:16] > Unless you have a use for the <<>> operator I dont see your point at all. Not every new behavior needs to be implemented as an operator. There are reasons to use or not use an operator for any given behavior. It's not the case that we use an operator whenever somebody does a first-pass implementation that way and we can't immediately propose some other use for the operator. Instead, if we have a suggested new behavior, we can consider the behavior apart from the question of whether or not it's been exposed in the right way. I also think that in most cases, we have quite a lot of generic features that can be used for new behaviors, and making a new kind of syntax is something that has to provide a good reason. So, the question is: is there one, here? I'll discuss that in another post, as others engaged the question and I'd like to reply to that. I'm writing this post mostly because of the following: > And I am saddened the first reply to Rafaels proposal was a bike-shed > comment, and from the pumpking too. > > We should just vote up or vote down proposals. No more bike-shedding. > Either you have a patch that is an alternative that we can consider or you > should vote no and we should let the majority win. I think this is a very bad idea. Under this regime, someone could supply a patch that's a cool feature. Then, someone else could notice a significant problem with it, but without C skills to implement a solution, they would be disallowed from even pointing out the problem. That's a complete non-starter. Language changes are things that have to be designed, and that means discussion. Here's my counter-proposal on bike-shedding: no more using the phrase bike-shedding. It's now used to mean "somebody wants to talk about something where I think I'm already right," and it's too emotionally charged. If you think someone is debating pointless trivia, suggesting changes of no consequence, or can't see the forest for the trees, point out the specific problematic behavior. There is absolutely no way on Earth that I am going along with "apply or don't apply, but never discuss," though. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next