Re: smartmatch signatures

On 11/14/2017 03:58 PM, Zefram wrote:
> [...]

I like the idea raised in the email, in short.

> The details of this are all open to discussion, but right now the details
> don't matter, because we're still some way from having a smartmatch
> that could be used for this purpose.  More useful at this stage would
> be some agreement in principle on whether we want something like this,
> and its coarser features.  But what we *really* ought to think about
> now is how the likelihood of this happening affects the experimental
> status of signatures.  Specifically, should we hold off from declaring
> signatures stable until this feature has been implemented?
>
> There isn't any need for such delay for simple users of signatures,
> because we can always add this feature later without breaking anything.
> But adding it later poses a problem for any module providing plugged-in
> syntax that wants to imitate and extend the core syntax for a signature
> item.  Given the popularity of signature-like syntax on CPAN, it
> seems likely that some will pop up, and it's a reasonable thing to do.
> Should we expect them to implement a partial core syntax at first and then
> add a new bit to it later?  Inevitably they wouldn't all do it, and some
> would be left deficient.  If we know that the core signature syntax isn't
> complete yet, keeping it marked experimental could be a useful indicator.


I think at the very least, if we stable signatures, we should clarify
with a large warning sticker for extending it further.

The more crucial part of this question, in my opinion, is that this
delay would not benefit the simple (and common) users of signatures who
would like to see it stable. We would have to stabilize a portion of
signatures then, or a simple set of behaviors.

• smartmatch signatures by Zefram
• Re: smartmatch signatures by Sawyer X