Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2015
On 19 December 2015 at 00:39, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 December 2015 at 23:54, David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Chad Granum <exodist7@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 1) Would anyone be opposed to having this functionality added? (and why?) >> >> >> I think you should answer the opposite question first. Why does this >> behavior need to be in core when there are already alternatives on CPAN? >> Note, I consider "so people can have fewer dependencies" uncompelling on its >> own as there are many things that could go into core on that basis that we >> haven't and wouldn't put into core. >> >> Until there is a compelling case for why it should go into core, I oppose >> adding it. > > I think that is sad. Simply because code exists on CPAN doesnt mean > that our core modules shouldnt do useful things. > > We are talking about what, 6 lines of code. > > So you are saying that because there are various cpan modules that do > similar things (which proves demand IMO), that we should not add those > 5 lines of code to make Exporter do them as well. > > That doesn't make sense to me, and IMO is not in the best interests of Perl. > > By that logic the fact that PCRE supported named captures, and Perl > can use PCRE we should not have added named captures to Perl. > > I think that is entirely the wrong approach to problems like this. This subject get my goat enough that I wanted to add a point. The logical extension of the "if its on CPAN it can't go into core" argument is that Perl in the long run becomes a hollowed out shell that does nothing but load CPAN modules. I think that is a recipe for the accelerated death of our community and language. Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next