Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2015
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Eric Brine <ikegami@adaelis.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Paul Johnson <paul@pjcj.net> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:20:58AM -0400, Eric Brine wrote: > >> > >> > For warnings, that's a backwards compatible change I oppose. I was > >> > promised > >> > that `use warnings;` would enable all warnings, and I've been > >> > recommending > >> > its usage on that basis for a decade. > >> > >> I still don't understand this argument. What is the practical > >> difference to you between "use warnings" not enabling a new warning by > >> default and the new warning never having been added? > > > > > > What's the point of debating this hypothetical situation that will never > > occur? > > It would occur if we changed the API as Ricardo is suggesting. > The whole point of the change is to add new warnings. If no new warnings are going to be added, then there's no reason to do the change, so I'm assuming new warnings will be added. There's no point in debating the hypothetical situation that no new warnings will be added. I made an attempt to summarize some of the different pros > & cons of what we could do here in a subsequent thread: > > > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2014/12/msg224147.html > What do you think about the different options presented there, or do > you have some of your own which you'd like to suggest? With the > current warning interface we can't freely add "advisory" warnings to > the core, what API do you suggest to allow us to do so? > Did you link to the right post? I see a list of ways to break backwards compatibility (and a couple of comments). I don't see any pros or cons about whether it should be done or not (or about anything else).Thread Previous | Thread Next