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

Re: Question/suggestion on perlfunc.pod example

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Glenn Golden
Date:
June 16, 2015 18:22
Subject:
Re: Question/suggestion on perlfunc.pod example
Message ID:
20150616182134.GF571@huh.zplane.com
Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> [2015-06-16 18:38:23 +0100]:
> Glenn Golden <gdg@zplane.com> wrote:
> >
> > In your version, "runs no external processes" has been dropped. Imo, as a
> > relatively inexpert perl user, that was a useful reminder, even though one
> > can certainly argue that the presence of backtics "obviously" implies an
> > external process.  To put it another way, a reader of my skill level might
> > well appreciate that reminder, even though it's redundant for the more
> > experienced user.  For the cost of four words, I'd favor keeping it.
> 
> FWIW, that phrase was added specifically to avoid incorrectly
> suggesting that C<do $file> will set $? in the same way that C<eval
> `cat $file`> does:
> 

So if I'm interpreting correctly, sounds like that is a vote for leaving the
phrase in, is that right?

Btw... the main branch of this thread seems to have fallen into a coma. 
I lost track of it after my last post about 10 days ago (which had suggested
some changes to the first part of Aristotle's private patched version, and
had also re-included the above phrase) but then it seems to have died after that. 

Looks like a secondary branch developed between Eric and Aristotle, but afaict,
it seems like Aristotle (or anyone) did not comment further on the main branch
until Aaron's comment above just now.

So... ping, for revival of the main branch...

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