Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2017
On 18 February 2017 at 03:51, <pali@cpan.org> wrote: > > That should not break any existing code. And new people who do know what > is utf8::is_utf8() doing will stop using it in new code. > > Idea is that people will stop using utf8::is_utf8() function which has > really bad name. This is probably more grounds for a critic policy at this point, breaking working code because some people are using it wrong, especially over such a large time scale, is not really great. Especially given you'll have an almost certain chance that somebody will "miss the memo" and will blindly go and replace all the use of is_utf8 with is_upgraded, not fixing the underlying reason it was wrong in the first place ( just like they missed the memo on why using is_utf8 in the first place was wrong ) I know that sounds like fatalistic "but people will do bad things", but given thats exactly the problem we're trying to avoid by renaming it here, seems silly to overlook that human limitation :) That's why a policy-based approach is probably "more sane", just attach documentation to the policy as to what you should be doing and why, and then turn on/off the policy as needed. I could have sworn there was already a policy for this, but I can't find it *shrug* The extra bright side of the policy is it serves no point of contention from P5P's side of the equation :) -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNLThread Previous | Thread Next