Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2017
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 the bit. > 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. -zeframThread Previous