Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2017
Re: square signatures
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Tomasz Konojacki
Date:
November 15, 2017 01:16
Subject:
Re: square signatures
Message ID:
20171115021534.AAEE.5C4F47F8@xenu.pl
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:07:00 +0000
Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote:
> * can immediately see whether you're looking at a prototype or a
> signature, not having to consider pragmata
> * prototype and signature more mentally distinct
IMO :prototype() makes them *much* more distinct.
>
> * nicer syntax for prototypes when signatures are enabled
>
I'd argue that :prototype() is the nicer syntax, because:
1. It's more explicit and it's googleable, which is important in case of
a rarely used feature.
2. It's more consistent. Prototype is nothing else than an attribute of
a subroutine, so it shouldn't be treated differently than :lvalue or
:const.
> * enabling signature syntax (in one file, or as a "use 5.030" bundle)
> doesn't break the old prototype syntax in existing code
I don't think that it's important. In a typical codebase, prototypes are
used in a tiny minority of functions. Converting them to :prototype()
should take no more than a few minutes.
Even in the most extreme case of CPAN modules from the List::* namespace,
it still isn't a lot of work.
If for some unlikely reason you can't update your prototypes to the new
syntax, don't enable signatures. That's the whole point of feature.pm.
> * documentation that gives examples using prototypes doesn't need any
> complexification
>
> Cons:
>
> * looks a bit weird
I'm sorry, but "a bit weird" is an understatement. This syntax looks
completely alien. I agree with Leon, anything else than our current
syntax is counter-intuitive.
>
> * all existing signature-using code (which either emits or explicitly
> muffles a "signatures are experimental" warning) needs to change
>
> Let the opinions flow.
>
> -zefram
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next