Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2016
On 09/05/2016 03:18 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > Is 5.26.0 the release that we get a final decision on smartmatch? I think it's about time, yes. > Tony Cook's > branch was looking pretty good last time I played with it, and I was especially > enthused about the ~~x and x~~ overloads, which seemed almost indispensible in > hindsight. > > Now that I'm writing code targeting the latest perl, I feel like I could > actually use ~~ if it got fixed. So I'm curious whether there's any resolve > now to (A) fix it (B) kill it (C) mark it off as a dangerous area never to be > discussed again. We should opt for fixing it by reducing it's behavior to the most consistent and expected one. RHS overloading makes sense, but double overloading might just be that extra little bit that throws this into "Ah rats!" territory, so I opt for not having it. Does anyone object to RHS overloading? Does anyone object to removing LHS overloading?Thread Previous | Thread Next