Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2016
Re: Indented here docs?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Karl Williamson
Date:
July 5, 2016 03:38
Subject:
Re: Indented here docs?
Message ID:
577B2B99.8090009@khwilliamson.com
On 07/04/2016 08:25 PM, Rocco Caputo wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 21:02, Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> wrote:
>>
>> Rocco Caputo wrote:
>>> All my objections go away if this new rule is codified before it's
>>> followed: Anything deprecated 20 years or more can be removed or altered
>>> without further notice.
>>
>> It has already been followed, multiple times, and for deprecations as
>> short as one year (before the 2-year rule was established). Is that
>> not what deprecation means, that it will change?
>
> I think deprecation is associated much more with removal than alteration, but that's not the real question.
>
> Nor is it whether the old feature can go away, now that I reread it. Thanks for prompting me.
>
> The real question seems to be whether to expedite the new feature in place of the old one. I still suggest more caution there, if only by documenting the rationale for making an exception to cover P5P's butt. Repurposing legal syntax is more problematic than rescinding it.
>
I'm not sure I understand this thread fully.
Given that this feature has been deprecated for so long, we can remove
it in 5.26. I believe it should die, as a courtesy to our customers,
but I don't believe there is anything in the policy that says we can't
reuse the syntax in 5.26 for whatever we want it to mean.
If we want this new behavior in 5.26, it could be made experimental,
requiring an appropriate enabling command to get it, otherwise it's use
generates a syntax error.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next