Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 08:26:03 -0800, demerphq wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2018 00:14, "Dave Mitchell" <davem@iabyn.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 07:44:49AM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> [snip lots of stuff about attr and sig order]
>
> The more I think about this, the more I think that attributes should
> be allowed in *either* position, with a warning or croak for specific
> attributes found in the "wrong" location: currently just :lvalue,
> but potentially other attributes added later that could affect the
> signature etc.
>
> This has the following advantages:
>
> 1) It allows :lvalue (and any future attributes) to be put in the
> correct place.
>
> 2) It allows current and future code using signatures to run on perls back
> as far as 5.22.0 (assuming that basic signatures don't change radically
> between now and whenever they stop being experimental).
>
> In particular it will allow the relatively common idiom of
> sub foo (....) :prototype(...) { ... }
> to work in future and as far back as 5.22.0.
>
> 3) It doesn't need any fragile hacks like disallowing 'return' within
> default signature code.
>
> I'm prepared to implement this if a consensus is reached (although I
> suspect it may be slightly tricky).
+1
> Before we say yes can you outline how one would mark an attribute as
> requiring LHS usage?
Specifically, how does one signal from a MODIFY_CODE_ATTRIBUTES sub that the attribute is going to install parsing hooks of some sort?
I think the answer is that the module needs to be able (even at the XS level) to enquire as to whether the sub’s op-parsing has begun yet. Do we need a new API function for that?
--
Father Chrysostomos
---
via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open
https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132760
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next