Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2015
From: Steffen Mueller
March 5, 2015 07:49
Message ID: 54F80A64.firstname.lastname@example.org
On 03/05/2015 05:48 AM, Karl Williamson wrote:
> 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.
For what it's worth, I was about to type virtually the same response.