Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2020
Re: Announcing Perl 7
From: Charles McGarvey
June 27, 2020 17:55
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Message ID: email@example.com
On 6/27/20 11:00 AM, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 12:46:53 -0400
> Dan Book <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I disagree, with both the premise and conclusion. It is in use, maybe
>> not always explicitly, but via modules doing the exact same thing.
>> Mojolicious currently provides the equivalent of "use v5.16" to all
>> of its own and user code, plus some other useful things like "use
>> warnings" and "use utf8" which we should really consider adding to
>> the "use VERSION" functionality. Any time which I could use "use
>> VERSION" and did not, it was only because I end up having to add an
>> explicit "use warnings" anyway.
> I'm with Dan on this one.
> I would probably use "use VERSION" a lot more often, if it actually did
> more things. At the moment it barely has any effect besides declaring
> the required version. If "use VERSION" actually did turn on warnings
> and generally fiddled around with featuresets a lot more like we're
> proposing - and a use v7 would - then I would use it a lot more.
"use VERSION" does implicitly load feature bundles. There is no bundle that
includes strict or warnings, but there's probably no reason why the ":7.00"
bundle couldn't do that to reduce some boilerplate.
> I don't think the argument that "nobody uses use VERSION now" to be all
> that appealing. Nobody uses it now because it's largely useless. Make
> it useful and people will use it.
The disuse of "use VERSION" has been asserted a couple times, but I actually
thought it was fairly common. Maybe I'm wrong. But I use it and so does my
$company. It's nice because of the aforementioned implicit feature bundle
loading and (as you say) to act as an annotation for static code analyzers,
syntax highlighters, and humans alike.
>> To summarize my overall point: I do not think that changing the
>> default enabled features sufficiently solves the stated problems, to
>> justify the amount of effort it will take to overcome the breakage it
>> will introduce, when compared with an improved "use v7" which does
>> not introduce any breakage and solves these problems as well.
> I especially agree with the part about authors of CPAN modules trying
> to be polite to older versions - I have quite a few of those myself.
> Right none almost none of them will be capable of being 7-friendly if 7
> just presumes its semantics without my say-so. If 7 required "use v7"
> to actually turn on 7-syntax then things like List::UtilsBy will
> continue to run without the horrible hack that is currently my attempt
> to monkeypatch a :prototype() into older Perls. [see other thread]
I'm still forming my opinions of the perl7 plan and still have questions that
need answers, but I will say for now that if I take a step back and consider
what I would want to see in a language that I'm pretending to have no
emotional attachment to, I think I'd have to say "use v" makes more sense than
"use compat::perlV". But I'll keep an open mind.
Maybe it's because I already use "use v" and so am acclimated to this idea,
but if Perl 7 was released under the current plan and I wanted to write
software targeting it, I would be tempted to include as boilerplate "use
compat::perl7" even if Perl 8 wasn't available yet, because I know someday
Perl 8 (or later) will be released with altered syntax and I don't want to
have to come back to code that is already working just to add a
"compat::perl7" just so that it continues to work in newer perls (at least
until any deprecated syntax I'm using gets removed, which is fine).
Just another p5p lurker