Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
On 02/06/2018 12:38 PM, Zefram wrote: > 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. What I am reading here is implying that cosmetic changes are meaningless. Take into account how Catalyst breaks differently if someone were to introduce a space, from ":CaptureArgs(...)" to ":CaptureArgs (...)". This is cosmetic but will now result in a completely different error (if at all), which could be quite confusing to the user. We care about that. Furthermore, one could also argue that calling return from a signature serves little purpose and is also a cosmetic difference and is possibly equally meaningless. Is there any value in returning from a signature (especially when using :lvalue) which cannot be just as easily ascertained without? It's just a wrong place to start the discussion from, IMHO. The more I spoke with Stevan about this, the more I realized this needs more thought. I wish more people joined the conversation. > Not only would current functionality be lost, but also a class of > potential functionality that we're likely to want to explore. Could you expand on this? Have we ever explored this class of functionality? Where is the likeliness coming from?Thread Previous | Thread Next