Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
Sawyer X wrote: > It might actually be better to bite the bullet on this and say >"Okay, this one case really doesn't work. If you're using lvalue >subroutine attribute, you can't return in the signature." and leave it >as the much nicer syntax. It would be asinine to compromise the functionality for what is at best a cosmetic improvement. (Personally I find it cosmetically neutral, so don't agree on it being an improvement in that manner, but even the people arguing for it don't ascribe it any more than cosmetic value.) People have decided that the cosmetics trump grammatical and structural coherence, but surely the line must be drawn before tangible functionality. Not only would current functionality be lost, but also a class of potential functionality that we're likely to want to explore. This is not an insignificant cost, and, as with the lvalue issue, was not taken into account in the decision to move signatures to precede attributes, because it wasn't specifically noticed at the time. (I eventually identified it in the @_-suppression thread.) -zeframThread Previous | Thread Next