Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2014
* 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.
--
rjbs
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next