Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2016
Re: Indented here docs?
From: Paul Johnson
July 5, 2016 18:44
Re: Indented here docs?
Message ID: 20160705184410.GI8772@pjcj.net
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 09:28:45AM +0200, Abigail wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 11:25:48PM +0200, Sawyer X wrote:
> > This point is very convincing. I'm not against adding this as 5.26
> > experimental while deprecating fully <<-, as Paul suggests.
> > If all goes well, and we don't experience problems, I'm in favor of
> > considering relaxing the rules for this specific one for 5.28. No
> > promises, though.
> > Sounds reasonable?
> Yes. It *sounds* reasonable.
> > Does anyone object?
> The problem with relaxing the rules "for this specific case" means
> from now on, you run the risk of people argueing that for every other
> case, the rules can be relaxed as well, pointing to the precedent
> If p5p thinks the current policy is hindering progress, I think p5p
> should drop the existing policy, and create a new one. Or it should
> stick to its own policies, and not make exceptions. Of course, if
> one just keeps changing policies, one may as well not have a policy.
This isn't the first time this has been brought up in this thread. I
agree with what is written here. I also love how backwards compatible
Perl is. I also wish Perl development would move faster. The question
is how to rationalise these disparate wishes.
It turns out that <<>> not going through an experimental period wasn't
really a relaxation of the rules. The rules (perlpolicy) say "In most
cases these additions will be marked as experimental for some time."
And later the rules say that experimental features stay that way for two
So we have the situation where we can legally add a new non-experimental
feature ("most"). Or we can add a feature which is experimental for two
releases. But we can't add a feature which is experimental for one
release. Or we sort of can if we go by the text above ("marked as
experimental for some time").
So yes, lets clear up the text. And my suggestion is that it should be
noted that the paragraph talking about two stable releases is the
default case, but that the pumpking may decide that only one
experimental cycle is needed (especially if the feature was stable over
the whole release) or, indeed, that no experimental cycle is needed at
After all, Sawyer needs some authority to go with the responsibility,
(Yes, I do err on the side of giving people enough rope. That's why I
program in Perl.)
Paul Johnson - email@example.com