Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2021
Re: Let's talk about trim() so more
From: Eirik Berg Hanssen
March 27, 2021 16:50
Re: Let's talk about trim() so more
Message ID: CAHAeAG6kjSfARPNd_GoGEuKza-heVLjkD-Pfv0gBp+cVU00muQ@mail.gmail.com
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 5:20 PM Christian Walde <email@example.com>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 17:09:53 +0100, Eirik Berg Hanssen <
> Eirik-Berg.Hanssen@allverden.no> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 4:37 PM Christian Walde <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 15:54:54 +0100, Eirik Berg Hanssen <
>> Eirik-Berg.Hanssen@allverden.no> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:35 PM Paul "LeoNerd" Evans <
>> email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Without wishing to respond to the specifics of the details this thread
>>> is throwing up, I want to make a meta-observation.
>>> There seems to be a lot more people replying on this email thread who
>>> seem to care about higher principles of language design, than were ever
>>> present on the original github discussions about the feature:
>>> I would like to ask: Where were you all earlier? Why didn't you respond
>>> there before we'd written it?
>> If I'm included in that: I was here. With a mailing list subscription,
>> but no Github account.
>> And no, I won't sign up for Github.
>> FYI: Even if you didn't make an account, nothing stops you from reading
> And indeed, I did read along.
>> And while i'm fine with having objections against github, i think basic
>> decency and politeness and respect for Scott's work who had no big choice
>> in where he got feedback means at the very least the two threads he linked
>> should've been read.
> I have read those. I'm pretty sure I read through them last year. And
> I definitely read through them again when the PSC made their call. Okay, I
> might have missed some recent additions thanks to the friendly interface
> hiding so much, but I don't see off hand that I missed anything
> significant. Clue me in?
>> Was there some kind of conception that an account was needed to read?
> The question I was responding to wasn't related to reading â it was "
> Why didn't you respond there before we'd written it?" And I took "there"
> to refer to "the original github discussions about the feature".
> I will not respond "there". If that means I'm not welcome "here", let
> me know, and I'll just unsubscribe.
> Tbh i suspect the thrust will be that we might want to either discourage
> usage of github for discussion or forward all github traffic to this list
> as well.
> As for what you seemed to have missed: Your first email here was about
> op2(op1(my $result1 = $input1));
> Which you yourself then realized doesn't actually chain. Which was
> something mentioned by multiple people, and explicitly here in a post that
> isn't yet in the "85 hidden items" block:
> Which then results in the question: Was this simple human error or
> something that github caused, and would changing our relationship to github
> fix it?
Simple human error â I reacted to a procedural example that didn't take
advantage of lvalues being mutable, and I just copied the op2(op1()) from
the functional example, not entirely cognizant of that chaining until I
looked at it again.
But when I caught that mistake, it was due to recalling just how chomp
works, not due to recalling that github comment (which, yes, I had read).
Not close enough context, I guess: In my mind, this is about Perl, not
github. Possibly also because I tend to binge on those github threads, so
do not digest them the same way I digest Perl documentation or even email
threads. But that's probably specific to my own relationship to github.