develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2018

Re: [perl #132142] Bleadperl v5.27.3-34-gf6107ca24b breaksMLEHMANN/AnyEvent-HTTP-2.23.tar.gz

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Dave Mitchell
Date:
July 14, 2018 08:47
Subject:
Re: [perl #132142] Bleadperl v5.27.3-34-gf6107ca24b breaksMLEHMANN/AnyEvent-HTTP-2.23.tar.gz
Message ID:
25918_1531558038_5B49B891_25918_49_1_20180714084701.GS2750@iabyn.com
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:15:11AM +0200, Andreas Koenig wrote:
> I would argue that
> 
> - by having the documentation in the delta manpage,

There was no such documentation in perldelta. There was mention of a new
optimisation, not of a new sort language feature.

There is a strong ethos within core development that new optimisations
shouldn't change user-visible behaviour where possible. If they do,
that's usually considered a bug, or if the trade off is worth it,
something to be documented as a gotcha.

Note also that the change was back-ported to 5.8.4 - an odd thing to do
for a changed language feature.

> - not taking it over into the perfunc/sort manpage and

There was nothing to take over.

> - not noticing the missing part of the documentation for 13 years

There was nothing missing.

> there is a case of a customary right on the side of all users of the
> language to keep the behaviour as implemented.

So do you agree that the behaviour which has been present since 5.000 and
was accidentally changed in 5.8.4, should be reverted to the 5.000 state,
since users have an expectation that the implemented behaviour should be
kept?

> Alternatives have not been suggested yet and might exist that might lead
> to an even better solution for all parties.

I'm open to suggestions.

>   > PS - I don't think for one minute the use of the phrase "in-place" was
>   > ambiguous *in context*, in either the p5p discussion or the perldelta; it
>   > was only ambiguous in the sense that your specific questions about it
>   > provided no context as to what behaviour was being referring to.
> 
> I'm not sure I can parse this sentence correctly. I think I have
> provided quite some context. If you think otherwise, feel free to ask.

You asked me some questions about the meaning of 'in-place'. I pointed
out the that phrase could potentially have two meanings, and
I wasn't clear which meaning you were referring to, so I gave answers
for both meanings. I further pointed out that where that phrase had been
used in perldelta / p5p discussion, I thought it was clear from the
context, which meaning was intended there - I wasn't conceding that
perldelta was ambiguous.

-- 
O Unicef Clearasil!
Gibberish and Drivel!
    -- "Bored of the Rings"

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About