Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2017
On 04/07/2017 12:21 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 8 April 2017 at 06:07, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not a bad idea, but we're pretty far in the cycle to test this change
>> out, I think.
>
>
> Yeah, the cleverer the solution, the more time we need to make sure we
> didn't introduce additional bugs in the cleverness.
>
> Which in practice means this late, without additional test cycles,
> this change would be worse than either choice of "leave it in" or
> "take it out".
>
I think people should be aware of the full consequences of this.
It is not just a simple matter of reverting this patch. Code has
marched on. In particular, you may recall that I missed some cases
where the deprecation should have been output, and code to output these
was added after this patch, and so presumes that these cases are fatal.
If I change the patch to just silently continue, the other code fails to
output a warning on some of the cases covered by this. If I instead
change it to output a warning, some cases will have 2 warnings output.
And cleverness is required to fix that. We could say that at this stage
in development, that we can live with 2 warnings. But the other warning
explicitly says it will be made fatal in 5.30. Part of the reason to
make these cases fatal now, was so that in 5.28, we could implement some
of the extensions made feasible by this. Having 2 warnings closes the
door on that possibility.
The solution that requires the least cleverness is my original kludge,
to simply make
/\${[^\}]*}/
non-fatal. It's trivial to do this, and keep it to a single warning
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next