Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2016
I don't see a reason to keep this experimental. On 05/12/2016 10:03 PM, Father Chrysostomos via RT wrote: > On Thu May 12 07:48:09 2016, lists.perl.perl5-porters@csjewell.fastmail.us wrote: >> On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 13:08, Ricardo SIGNES via RT wrote: >>> What, if anything, is preventing this from leaving experimental status? >>> >>> (I've been using these more lately, and I am still happy.) >> Maybe I can throw some questions out from this issue. >> >> "Do they deparse?" is the main question I'm seeing. > They do deparse, as of 5.22, except for the bizarre edge cases in lexsub.t. I don’t think the remaining cases need to block it. > >> Others questions I see are that there are problems with the callchecker >> related to these subs (which may already be solved), and setting > Reading, not setting. > >> a >> prototype at runtime. > Those are solved. The prototype-reading problem was a misunderstanding. > >> Which, if any, of these do we want to make official requirements to make >> this unexperimental? Or do we just say 'We've had enough time, Mikey >> likes it, so it's unexperimental now." > Ticket #123367, as I said before. Other than that, I think the implementation is stable enough. A year ago I would certainly not have thought so. >Thread Previous | Thread Next