* Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> [2014-07-27T14:19:44] > Imagine: > > use 5.022; # Enables turning off magic-open. > ... > while (<>) { > ... > } > > Time passes, and the code gets run [1] on 5.20. It dies with a version > error. Someone removes the 'use 5.022' (what, you've never done that? > I have), and lo, it works. Well, with the safety off. Yeah, this is precisely what I've been frowning at all day. I'm still not a huge fan of <<>>, but I think in the end, it will be better than features. I'm not decided either way, I'm flip-flopping around, but I've always been pretty unhappy about invisible changes being introduced by features (because then you can't get rid of the feature, ever, for one thing!), and I think this is probably another place where it would be a problem. What I *didn't* say originally was that this would be a great place for adverbs in the Perl 6 style. I'd hardly say that we should not merge <<>> just because adverbs would be better, but it would be a *resuable* and *multi-purpose* extension of syntax. For example: while (<>:nomagic) { ... } So maybe this message is a formal notice of "this would be useful here," so that I remember it in the future in other cases, like <>:chomp and whatever else comes to mind. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next