Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2017
Avar wrote: > Not meaningless design changes, but to have some sort of schedule > (preferably enforced by code, i.e. as soon as we begun 5.25 we start to > warn/die) giving these experimental features an explicit expiry date. This would be a good way to discourage people from implementing new features. > The way perlpolicy is worded now, we could introduce an "experimental" > feature and not change its semantics for 20 years, and still call it > "experimental". That's absurd. Such a situation would be absurd, but there is nothing absurd about a policy that does not take absurd situations into account. We do not need a policy comprehensible only to lawyers. > Consider the situation we're now in. We're about to release 5.28 and > we've chickened out on changing a supposedly "experimental" feature > mainly because it breaks stuff on CPAN. Good. That means we are involving the *whole community* in the lan- guage design process. Yay for popular-vote-by-CPAN! > This is the use it or lose it moment, either we change the semantics, or > we have to recognize that the "experimental" status perlpolicy talks > about doesn't exist at all Going ahead with breaking changes just to prove a point is cruel. This has *nothing* to do with whether experimental status is meaningful. We will not lose credibility with regard to what experimental means just because of this. We have already exercised the experimental label in a way that shows that we mean it.Thread Previous | Thread Next