Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2017
August 11, 2017 17:13
Message ID: 20170811171252.GS9383@fysh.org
Father Chrysostomos wrote:
>In that case, the existing flag (REQUIRE_GV) does *not* set a pattern
>for future flags to follow.
It establishes a pattern, but doesn't make it mandatory. Future flags
for which the pattern is appropriate should follow it; those for which
it is not should not.
> As I have pointed out, it does not pro-
>vide anything useful.
It provides the ability to not have to worry about interpreting the
state of that flag.
These two benefits are each non-essential, but I think they're worth
> I think all it provides is confusion,
No more so than the inverted sense of the bit in ckflags already does.
I think the volume of required documentation, and the mental work required
to compose a caller, would both increase, though only slightly, if the
flag were removed from this place.