Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2014
On Sun Nov 02 00:30:58 2014, demerphq wrote: > Seems to me the problem here is that the () prototype does too much, in > that it is used to mark a sub as constant, and to mark as sub as > argumentless. Since changing that at all will break lots of stuff, I think > the safest solution is to leave it alone, possibly in the long term > deprecating it, and add two new prototype's which do the two jobs > separately, once they have been in the wild for a while you can deprecate > and then remove the () prototype. I’m opposed to that approach, because there should be no need for sensible code to change from () to anything else if I tread carefully enough. The cases I came up with are from reading the code that I had trouble making sense of at first. It’s unlikely they occur in the wild, and if they do, I am probably fixing buggy code. > With these two behaviours separated there is no need for code detection, > any sub with a "C" prototye would be executed once at compile time, That sounds like the :const prototype that Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason proposed. > and > then its result used in place of any call to it in the code. (Which is how > this should have been done in the first place.) > > IOW, I think you are trying to solve this problem the wrong way. Don't > bother fixing it, make it unnecessary to do at all. > > Yves > > -- Father Chrysostomos --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=123092Thread Previous