Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2016
On 05/20/2016 07:28 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
> On 05/20/2016 11:21 AM, Matthew Horsfall (alh) wrote:
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> wrote:
>>> In private conversation, Ed clearified he wants to remove indirect
>>> object notation from examples dealing with constructs other than
>>> indirect object notation.
>>>
>>> I do not object to that.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> -- Matthew Horsfall (alh)
>>
>
> Not only do I not object to that, I think it is a good idea
I agree with removing indirect object notation examples given in core
documentation. If anyone strongly objects to removing examples from the
perspective Abigail originally provided ("Seeing it is knowing it
exists"), we can keep it in some cases with a comment saying direct
methods should be used instead.
Regarding the "indirect" pragma (vpit++), I believe last time I saw a
significant reduction in speed, which I think should at least be
revisited in any future suggestion of implementing it in core. Off-hand,
I don't see a particular problem with providing it with a "use 5.x"
pragma statement. I would be happy to see a discussion around the topic
before any decisions are reached.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next