Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2016
Re: Indented here docs?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Aristotle Pagaltzis
Date:
July 11, 2016 00:46
Subject:
Re: Indented here docs?
Message ID:
20160711004608.GA55826@plasmasturm.org
* Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> [2016-07-11 00:36]:
> Matthew Horsfall (alh) wrote:
> > and even if we want to get rid of bare <<.
>
> Yes, we are. The issue we've had finding a syntax for indented
> heredocs mean that the bare << is now an actual impediment to
> desirable development. We did actually find a non-clashing syntax this
> time, but there aren't many non-clashing characters left if we want to
> do something similar again.
*If* we want to do something similar again. But we have no such plans at
this time. Under these circumstances this argument amounts to “we should
remove it just in case”.
That is the exact opposite of the current dictum to not break backcompat
until and unless it impedes actual changes.
I would say that this incident instead argues that bare << should be
scaled back from deprecated to discouraged. That was arguably the intent
of its deprecation, which antedates that particular distinction and has
yet to require cashing in. Since long-standing deprecations are bad for
the language, it should be done away with.
This is all argued under the premise that we go with <<~. If instead we
go for <<- then the conclusions differ since we have a situation that
merits considering removal of bare <<.
But either we pick the option that requires cashing in the deprecation
and we do cash it in – or we pick the option that doesn’t and we don’t.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
Gruß,
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next