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

Re: De-experimentalising "signatures"

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Chad Granum
Date:
February 11, 2021 04:54
Subject:
Re: De-experimentalising "signatures"
Message ID:
CAJFr3kvVAQcUwsghvPRkgG3ZOxsXdjthQOH5FnwWd0mtCtJnTA@mail.gmail.com
+1

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 8:54 AM Paul "LeoNerd" Evans <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk>
wrote:

> `use feature 'signatures';` was added in 5.20 - May 2014 (over 6 years
> ago). Since then, it has seen some minor adjustment to the order of
> signatures vs. attribute notation; swapped in 5.22 then back again to
> its now-current form in 5.24 - May 2016 (over 4 years ago).
>
> It has remained "stable" (i.e. not being changed) in its current form
> ever since then, yet the "experimental" feature tag remains.
>
> Why?
>
> I know Dave M has plans to add lots more things (type assertions,
> generic query syntax, named variables, etc...) and I'm excited about
> and definitely want to see many of those things. But I don't know of
> any firm reason why signatures in their current form need to be marked
> "experimental" to do so. All over the language we are able to
> experimentally add new things without marking the entire surrounding
> context as "experimental".
>
> In the meantime, a lot of feedback I've been seeing for a long time on
> Freenode #perl, and more recently at FOSDEM over this weekend, is that
> folks don't want to wait, or aren't allowed to use signatures as they
> stand, because it is still marked "experimental" and thus they are
> forbidden by whatever local policy development houses may have. Yet
> other developers are simply put off by the scary "e" word. I have heard
> - on more than one occasion - that devs have been firmly told by their
> manager "do not use signatures" for the sole reason of them being
> "experimental".
>
> I would therefore like to propose that signatures - in their current
> form unchanged between 5.24 and 5.32 - be declared no longer
> experimental and promoted to a fully-fledged first-class language
> feature. Any further additions (which as already mentioned are very
> welcome and keenly anticipated) can perhaps be done either under a new
> experiment name, or by adding the "experimental" warning to that part
> of the syntax alone. I don't see why signatures *as a whole* should
> still be declared experimental. Many developers and CPAN modules are
> already using them as if they were stable first-class features. I think
> by now the ship has *already* sailed on us ever changing any existing
> details of them.
>
> (cross-posted to github as https://github.com/Perl/perl5/issues/18537 )
>
> --
> Paul "LeoNerd" Evans
>
> leonerd@leonerd.org.uk      |  https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS
> http://www.leonerd.org.uk/  |  https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/
>

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