Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2016
On 05/10/2016 10:22 PM, Eric Brine wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Rocco Caputo <rcaputo@pobox.com > <mailto:rcaputo@pobox.com>>wrote: > > > On May 5, 2015, at 11:23, Eric Brine <perlbug-followup@perl.org > <mailto:perlbug-followup@perl.org>> wrote: > > > > # New Ticket Created by "Eric Brine" > > # Please include the string: [perl #125106] > > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > > # <URL: https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=125106 > <https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=125106>> > > > > > > threads.pm <http://threads.pm>says: > > > > The use of interpreter-based threads in perl is officially > discouraged. > > > > > > Why is that? Is it just because they're rather heavy? If so, why > not just > > say so and let the user decide whether he wants to use them or > not? After > > all, heavy threads aren't a problem if you reuse them (as in a > worker > > model). > > If your documentation is anything like mine, the paragraph before > that statement tries to explain why. Perhaps the discouragement > should begin with "Because of this, the use of...." to hint that > the reader may have skipped something important and to discourage > people from taking a provocative statement out of context. > > > One might think that, except that the word "discouraged" is linked to > a definition that means something quite different than "not to be used > without understanding what it means that Perl threads are heavy". It > actually defines "discouraged" as "we'd like to get rid of them, but > we're not doing it now" > > * *discouraged* > > From time to time, we may mark language constructs and features > which we consider to have been mistakes as *discouraged*. > Discouraged features aren't currently candidates for removal, but > we may later deprecate them if they're found to stand in the way > of a significant improvement to the Perl core. > I agree this is a confusing description. I also like Rocco's comments on describing *why* something is the way it is, even if briefly. I found an example in the thread Rocco linked[1], by Aristotle, on how to explain things briefly and clearly: "complex data structures are hard to share properly" The quote is out of context and does not constitute as the patch I would envision, but it's an example of how to describe something complicated succinctly. Perhaps we can form a patch describing what we mean by "discouraged". Having context might excuse us from trying to find a better term for this than "discouraged". [1] Thanks, Rocco!Thread Previous | Thread Next