Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2016
Re: Indented here docs?
From: Sawyer X
July 17, 2016 18:14
Re: Indented here docs?
Message ID: 578BCAFE.firstname.lastname@example.org
I wrote a much longer email at first, but I've resolved to make a
(hopefully) clearer and more succinct response.
On 07/17/2016 02:28 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Sawyer X <email@example.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 started listing why this comparison is wrong (cost of operation vs.
patch, low cost of ditch filling when building bigger projects, etc.)
but I'll simply comment to this with: I reject this comparison.
This situation is not so complicated that we cannot express with it in
few words. (I also consider this is my response to the rest of this email.)
* We have syntax which is deprecated for a very long time.
* It interfered in a proposal for a new feature we would like to have.
* Our policy *clearly* states that we might remove deprecated features.
* That's... pretty much it.
You think it should not be removed while some do.
My personal position on this, which should be discussed in a separate
thread on whether to remove it or not, is to remove it. We can do this
with a deprecation cycle as well.
However, my opinion is not what will necessarily happen. If it were, we
would have had hoverboards by now. What happens instead is that this
decision is made once enough people voice their opinion on the value of
removing it vs. the value of keeping it, and we are more likely to
discuss it practically under a dedicated thread.