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

Re: We need a language design process.

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Father Chrysostomos
December 31, 2017 01:48
Re: We need a language design process.
Message ID:
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

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