develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2020

Re: Proposed new policy and approach to handling fatal exceptions inbackports: -DFATAL_BACKPORTS_(?:DIS)?ALLOWED

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
demerphq
Date:
February 10, 2020 15:08
Subject:
Re: Proposed new policy and approach to handling fatal exceptions inbackports: -DFATAL_BACKPORTS_(?:DIS)?ALLOWED
Message ID:
CANgJU+VmFPJWD-TkUtwQojcP5FpT=00cK-fzqv8fnzFAODiSBQ@mail.gmail.com
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, 21:03 Ricardo Signes, <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org>
wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, at 1:37 AM, demerphq wrote:
>
> I personally find this absurd. In one case we are arguing that making a
> regexp construct that can infinite loop die cannot be backported because it
> introduces a new fatal exception. There is some suggestion that making it
> generate a different, existing error message, "saves the backport". I find
> this absurd too. Why should a less useful message be ok, but a more
> informative one not be?
>
>
> You are omitting an important part of my objection:
>
> It introduces a new *compile time *exception that would affect programs
> not affected by the existing *runtime* exception.
>
> This isn't swapping in a better error message.  This is making more
> programs die, including ones that currently run without error.
>

It is clear to me you and I arent going to agree about this, which is why
I'm try I'm trying to figure out a solution that works for both of us.

Yves

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