develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2021

Re: Do we want PL_operator_plugin? [was: Re: Do we want aCXt_CUSTOM?]

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Paul "LeoNerd" Evans
February 4, 2021 12:22
Re: Do we want PL_operator_plugin? [was: Re: Do we want aCXt_CUSTOM?]
Message ID:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 01:38:34 +0000 wrote:

> I've always been a fan of such hooks, but @iabyn has often responded
> to suggestions of more with the cogently argued point that they bind
> the hands of core in perpetuity, and thus make impossible changes that
> would otherwise be able to benefit all users.
> There's a definite tension there, so I think one would need to be able
> to clearly make the case that the point of hooking is one that we
> won't want to change in any reasonably likely future in a way that the
> existence of the hook would make more problameatic.

Oh indeed there is; but the same tension is always present for any
other feature too. It might vary to different degrees in different
situations, but whenever adding any feature you always have to consider
the long-term support implications behind whatever you document as
being "the thing".

I often find the way to approach that is to start off trying to *use*
the newly added feature, imagining it to be added in whatever form I
would find most convenient to use. That way I have some test cases, and
a feel for "what would users want to use?" that are made independently
of how it might be implemented. Hopefully a sufficiently-practical and
useful interface is not so tightly constrained to its implementation
that it unduely constrains the shape of that implementation.

Paul "LeoNerd" Evans      |  |

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About