Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2017
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Elizabeth Mattijsen <liz@dijkmat.nl> wrote: >> On 30 Dec 2017, at 18:16, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote: >> Leon Timmermans wrote: >>> Why would our end-users want that? >> They'd want a deprecation to give them notice to rewrite their code >> for portability across the smartmatch change. They'd want the process >> of changing smartmatch to move forward so that they can get a language >> feature that's coherent and usable and which p5p is willing to maintain. > > Isn’t the issue really that most people think the language feature is already coherent and usable enough for them to use in their code for over a decade? Yes, that! Smartmatch as a whole is clearly insane. The part that people actually use not so much (except the string/number thing; but that can be dealt with). Breaking that because of the parts that no one ever uses is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Why would anyone want that? LeonThread Previous | Thread Next