develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2015

Re: OP_SIGNATURE

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Zefram
Date:
March 4, 2015 20:37
Subject:
Re: OP_SIGNATURE
Message ID:
20150304203653.GS8710@fysh.org
demerphq wrote:
>You and Zefram seem to take the view that once we release a Perl with
>OP_SIGNATURE in it that the game is over, and we have to keep it.
...
>We can mark the opcode as experimental,

Marking it as experimental doesn't mean that only experimental code
will see it.  Op munging code will see whatever ops there are, whether
it wants to experiment or not.

>I also read an implication that DaveM should hack this in a way that
>you guys approve of,

DaveM is not obliged to implement what we're proposing.  Imperative
statements from me to DaveM aren't orders, they're shorthand for "if
you want to implement something that's like this and would also meet my
approval, then ...".

>                     and that doing nothing is better than doing
>something that you don't like,

Due to the unavoidable API visibility of any new op type, yes, I think
it's better to leave this unoptimised until we've got a satisfactory
way of doing it.

-zefram

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About