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

Re: Proposal: Add {-as => 'new_name'} feature to Exporter.pm

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Chad Granum
Date:
December 19, 2015 04:00
Subject:
Re: Proposal: Add {-as => 'new_name'} feature to Exporter.pm
Message ID:
CAJFr3kvULNK5f9kp50W1t8JNRZDEqvwzgLmR+3DAUm2ty5YDjw@mail.gmail.com
I did fail to explain why I wanted the feature to begin with. I will do
that now.

As you know I have been working on a Test::Builder replacement. One
complaint that came up in code review was my use of a custom exporter
library which provides a handful of features Exporter.pm lacked. One of
those features was renaming imports. The others I can do without at this
stage of development.

The one feature I still *think* I will need is renaming on import. I say
think because the part I need that on comes layer now that the project has
been split into a backend and a frontend. The frontend still needs it, but
that could change, thr frontend work will come later .

Do I need this *now*? No. As I said that work will come later, and I may
not beed it at that point. But I wanted to havw the conversation now,
before I need it so that I am not blocked by it when/if I do.

Is this relevant to core? Yes. The backend of the testing tool at least is
something we hope to get into core, and I am working with rjbs and others
to achieve that. The front end discussion has not happened yet, and I do
not want to have it now, specially not in this thread.

This is why my discussion was framed as "would anyone object" to test the
waters well before I lock it in as a necessity so that I can try harder to
avoid it of the idea is rejected.

-Chad.
On Dec 18, 2015 6:09 PM, "David Golden" <xdg@xdg.me> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:39 PM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Until there is a compelling case for why it should go into core, I
>> oppose
>> > adding it.
>>
>> I think that is sad.
>
> ...
>> I think that is entirely the wrong approach to problems like this.
>
>
> Perhaps I can restate it in terms you won't find sad.
>
> I don't think we should ever approach core additions with an argument like
> this:  "I have great idea X, anyone object?"
>
> I think additions should at least be approached like this:  "I have great
> idea X.  I think it should go into core because Y and Z.  Do people agree?"
>
> Even better: "I have great idea X.  The benefits are Y and Z.  The
> downsides are P and Q.  On balance, I think that it would be a good
> addition to core.  Do people agree?  Have I missed anything?"
>
> This doesn't mean we shouldn't ever add to core.  It means that we should
> have a case that is better than "no one said no".
>
> David
>
> --
> David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/Github: @xdg
>

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