Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2015
On 10/07/2015 05:34 AM, demerphq wrote:
> On 25 September 2015 at 19:03, Victor ADAM <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:
>> # New Ticket Created by Victor ADAM
>> # Please include the string: [perl #126185]
>> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
>> # <URL: https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=126185 >
>>
>>
>> This is a bug report for perl from victor.adam@derpymail.org,
>> generated with the help of perlbug 1.40 running under perl 5.23.4.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> [Please describe your issue here]
>>
>> How to reproduce
>> ----------------
>>
>>> perl5.23.4 -e '/(?-p)/p; print defined for ${^MATCH}, ${^PREMATCH}, ${^POSTMATCH}'
>>
>> Expected behavior
>> -----------------
>>
>> Perl should die with the following diagnostic:
>>
>>> Regexp modifier "p" may not appear after the "-" in regex; marked by <-- HERE in m/(?-p <-- HERE )/ at -e line 1.
>
> I dont know that I agree that Perl should die. We warn instead:
>
> $ ./perl -we'qr/(?-p)foo/'
> Useless use of (?-p) in regex; marked by <-- HERE in m/(?-p <-- HERE
> )foo/ at -e line 1.
>
> Given the mild consequences of this type of mistake I think warnings
> are sufficient.
>
> Unless someone strongly disagrees I would like to close this ticket
> as "wont fix".
>
> Thanks for the report though!
>
I agree with Yves. But I think the ticket should be rejected rather
than wont fix, as I think the latter indicates that we agree that this
is a problem but the downside of changing it outweighs the upside (for
example too hard to fix or it would break too much existing code). And
here, I think that the consequences are mild, so it was the right design
decision to be a warning. There are places where I think we've made the
wrong design decision and carried on in the face of garbage input and
done some action that is almost certainly not what was intended, but
this isn't one of those places IMO.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next