Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2016
James E Keenan via RT wrote:
>Now, there's a lot of analysis packed into that commit message --
>but I'm not sure that all of it is reflected in the tests.
Yes. The commit message is mostly a rearrangement of comments I made
on IRC while we were discussing the issue, setting out the background
for the behaviour. It's not well structured to provide context for the
tests; in fact it's not well structured at all.
Furthermore, the form of the test code suggests some misunderstanding
of what I said. I contrasted "foo($x{bla})" against "\$x{bla}".
"foo(\$x{bla})", which has both kinds of lvalueness (but not applied to
the same subexpression) is not a coherent choice of test expression.
I approve of adding tests for this part of the language, but we should do
better than this patch. Better test code can be readily be constructed:
there are a bunch of additional nearby cases that should be covered.
The commit message doesn't need to explain the semantics at the level
of detail that was attempted.
-zefram
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next