Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2018
Dana Sat, 27 Jan 2018 03:21:32 -0800, xsawyerx@gmail.com reče: > > > On 01/24/2018 09:04 PM, slaven@rezic.de wrote: > > [...] > > > > - What does this change means in terms of usability of signatures? Users > > mixing signatures and prototypes must increase their perl prerequisite > > from 5.22 to 5.28, which may mean it could be less likely that > > signatures are used in the next time. Is this worth for this change? > > We don't like it, but the alternative is that you have partially broken > signatures. If we demand that signatures stay where they are, we are > demanding they stay broken when it comes to cooperating with other, > stable syntax - namely, subroutine attributes. This is literally broken > by design, in that sense. > > Honestly, I feel this is getting ridiculous. We cannot even change > experimental features that were *always* experimental because people > already started using it? I was just asking if it could be done better (which is probably not a good sign that I have to ask...). So that's the dilemma of experimental features: people should not use them because they can change, or vanish; but without using them possible problems get noticed too late. But I found the 1st question in the ticket more important. The now not implemented order "first signature, then attributes" seems to be the natural order for me, and it's possible that this kind of error happens often in future. So can we improve diagnostics, or even support both types of order with some safety net where the order matters (like in the case of lvalue)? --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132760Thread Previous | Thread Next