develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2017

Re: We need a language design process.

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Father Chrysostomos
December 30, 2017 15:27
Re: We need a language design process.
Message ID:
Avar wrote:
> I think in the future it makes sense to hold
> ourselves to reviewing these features once they've been unchanged in say
> 2 or 3 releases, and for the policy to say that experimental features
> unchanged in 3 development cycles must either be promoted to
> non-experimental, removed entirely, or have their semantics changed in
> major ways.

I don't think it makes sense.  If a feature is significantly flawed
(and experimental) due to lack of tuits (e.g., refaliasing), do
we have to make meaningless design changes to it to avoid having
it yanked?

I do not believe there is anything in the process that could change in
such a way as to help.  Some seem to be treating this situation as a
disaster that could have been avoided, not realising that the disaster
*was* avoided, *precisely* because of the process we currently have,
which is working.  Nothing has been dumped on users in a stable
release yet.  I would call that success.

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About