Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2016
On 26 May 2016 10:45, "demerphq" <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 26 May 2016 01:01, "Father Chrysostomos via RT" < perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed May 25 21:55:41 2016, sprout wrote: > > > It often comes up on the list that /$foo/ is subject to re-use of the > > > last match if $foo is empty, and most people then admit that it was a > > > mistake, and that the last match should be used only when the // is > > > syntactically empty. (I believe we have consensus on this, but I may > > > be mistaken.) > > > > > > Because of backward-compatibility, we cannot simply change it, but we > > > could emit a deprecation warning whenever /$foo/ uses the last > > > successful match. > > > > > > I suspect this will catch many bugs in people’s code. After the > > > deprecation cycle, we can make /$foo/ behave the same way as > > > /(?:$foo)/. > > > > I forgot to mention. Anyone who intentionally wants /$foo/ to use the previous match will also get the deprecation warning and change the code to do it some other way. > > > > That said, we might want to change /$foo/ without a deprecation cycle, since almost every use of it to mean last-successful-match is probably a bug. This should probably be done early in the dev cycle. > > > > In ticket #128225, Yves Orton wrote: > > > Fwiw i dont buy the back compat argument on this > > > one. I have never seen this feature deliberately > > > used, most people are unaware of it and when they > > > discover it they consider it a bug like in this > > > thread. In fact the only time I have seen it used > > > is in toy code that I wrote to demonstrate the > > > feature. I am convinced that nobody would notice > > > and that the *many* issues that have come from it > > > over the years justifies removing it entirely. > > > > Are you referring to the removal of // as referring to the last successful match? > > Yes. > > > I am strongly opposed to that, > > Ok. But We should definitely deprecate it and then remove it (for real). Fwiw have you ever used it or seen it used? > > >but I don’t mind changing /$foo/-as-last-match, without a deprecation cycle, if we do it soon Yeah. I agree that is less controversial. Fwiw One problem i have with this misfeature is that the pattern to split does not follow the same rule as a normal match. > > > > -- > > > > Father Chrysostomos > > > > > > --- > > via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: new > > https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=128241 RThread Previous | Thread Next