Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2015
From: Karl Williamson
March 5, 2015 04:48
Message ID: 54F7E02B.firstname.lastname@example.org
On 03/04/2015 07:35 PM, James E Keenan wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 03:12 PM, Jan Dubois wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Dave Mitchell <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Since this is an internal implementation detail change to an
>>> feature, I'm hoping that it will be non-controversial to merge it into
>>> bleed once it passes smoking.
>> I'm hoping too that this will be considered non-controversial.
> Simply observing the volume of discussion in this thread suggests that
> it cannot be considered non-controversial and is therefore ineligible
> for Perl 5.22.
> I don't claim to have an understanding of opcodes sufficient to take a
> stand one way or the other on the issue.
> Thank you very much.
It's claimed by some that these changes are visible. If so, they would
require a dispensation from the pumpking to get them into 5.22. But if
they're not visible, I see the only valid ground to object would be that
there isn't enough time to soak something that the objector finds too
complicated, and all the noise about there being better ways to do this
is completely irrelevant.
If the changes are truly invisible, there is no API to worry about
committing ourselves to. (I myself haven't examined the changes to form
an opinion about their visibility, but the claimed speed-up is very
I think any arguments against invisible changes are invalid.