Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2016
Re: Indented here docs?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Aristotle Pagaltzis
Date:
July 17, 2016 12:28
Subject:
Re: Indented here docs?
Message ID:
20160717122808.GA15788@plasmasturm.org
* Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> [2016-07-16 19:00]:
> Bare << was deprecated for 20 years now. It has now been a principal
> part of a discussion on a new feature and stood in the way. The fact
> that we ended up picking different syntax which does not mix with bare
> << does not mean it was not in the way.
Yes, “was” – past tense.
So, we drove down some old back road hardly anybody goes through, that
we do not plan to be on again. And we encountered a ditch cutting across
the road. The ditch sometimes carries water, very rarely. So we stopped
and considered the options: fill it up to drive over it, or just drive
off the road a little to go around it… or do both: fill it up first,
then go off the road a little to drive around it.
Well yes, the ditch was in the way before we filled it up, and having
filled it up does not change that. But saying we will fill it up even
though we drove around it still seems unreasonable to me. It did carry
water occasionally. If we expected more language design traffic in this
area, sure, but what is the benefit in this case?
> I wish to add that despite the desire of some people to keep Perl 5
> standing in place, it is a language, and it evolves.
Is this supposed to refer to me? If so, I would ask how you think “one
option we have is to just remove the deprecated feature (even without
a deprecation cycle in this case) and use the room it opens up” can be
characterised as a desire to keep Perl 5 standing in place.
If this is a reference to people who did not participate in the
discussion in public, please say so. I would find that surprising, and
would like to know as much as you can reveal about them. How many were
there, and how strongly did they feel about it? Can we have a more
specific indication of their position?
If this does not refer to the position of any actual person, I will ask
what your argumentative ends in setting up a straw man to tear down are.
(Of course I have assumptions about which of these might be the case,
but I should not be read to cast an implication. I want to be completely
fair and honest, because I cannot otherwise expect likewise, so I remain
open to the possibility that this has nothing to do with me or positions
like mine, and that you are being completely fair.)
> That means new features will be introduced and old syntax might be
> removed, when deemed necessary. The value of having a reasonable
> feature (in this case, indented heredocs) versus keeping a deprecated
> feature (bare <<), which was decided in '96 by Larry to deprecate, is
> greater. If one wishes to remain with the syntax of Perl pre-1996 with
> no alterations, one may revert to Perl 5.002.
But we are not remaining with unaltered pre-1996 Perl. We *are* adding
indented heredocs – one way or another. The either-or choice implied by
your construction of the issue does not exist.
I don’t even know how to ask whether “pre-1996 Perl” is a strawman
without inviting accusations of unfairness. Who wanted that and why are
you arguing with them?
You say “when deemed necessary” without specifying when that will be.
And everything hinges on that. Are you saying the standard for that will
henceforth be lower than “specific implementation conflict”? Will the
general mood being in favour of removal be sufficient standard in the
future?
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next