Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2020
Re: chained comparisons
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Sawyer X
Date:
March 13, 2020 14:03
Subject:
Re: chained comparisons
Message ID:
662ec90b-5afd-ab83-5f69-426a427e3536@gmail.com
[Top posted]
Unless I find more specific arguments for curtailing this behind
experimental status (ones that specifically address this code), I think
this can be added without an experimental flag.
On 3/13/20 12:54 AM, Sawyer X wrote:
>
> On 3/7/20 10:41 PM, Zefram via perl5-porters wrote:
>> Leon Timmermans wrote:
>>> 1. Does it need to be a feature? (in the feature.pm sense of the word)
>> No, for the reason you stated. This is also the same reason why,
>> without a feature flag, it's compatible with the current freeze status.
>
>
> I agree with both of these statements.
>
>
>>
>>> 2. Does it need an experimental warning?
>> No, it's not experimental. The semantics are obvious and dictated by
>> the existing operators; there's really no possibility of tweaking them.
>
>
> This also seems correct to me.
>
>
>> The question is not what this feature should look like, but merely
>> whether
>> we want to implement this feature,
>
>
> I'm not so sure about this though.
>
>
> I've thought of Karl's arguments and initially thought putting this
> behind experiment makes sense. Now I'm not so convinced.
>
>
> Do we imagine the semantics changing? No.[1]
>
> Do we imagine this becoming a security concern? I don't think so.[2]
>
>
> What I am wondering is how far can these semantics be stretched. I
> honestly doubt if that far, since this seems like such a well-scoped
> syntax change.
>
>
>> and we are already well placed to
>> make a firm decision on the matter.
>
>
> I agree we are well placed to make a firm decision on whether we want
> to implement it, but not whether we need to guard it with an
> experimental warning.
>
>
> [1] There were many things we didn't expect to change semantics, but
> they did. However, they were fairly large in scope, like signatures,
> smart match, etc.
>
> [1] Then again, how often do we look at something and imagine it a
> security concern? (Perhaps aside from the regex engine. :)
>
>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next