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

Re: on changing perl's behavior

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Christian Walde
Date:
March 31, 2021 07:56
Subject:
Re: on changing perl's behavior
Message ID:
op.0030chr2ydyjqt@xenbox.cihq
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 03:26:45 +0200, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021, at 3:54 AM, Christian Walde wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:07:37 +0200, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:
>>> This one I think I can only state as a trade-off per se:  Spending time on maintaining long->>>discouraged behaviors is good only to the extent that they can't be deprecated and >>>removed instead.  How do we know whether we can deprecate and remove some >>>behavior?  Well, that's largely a function of all of the above.
>> Have more reading and thinking to do, but:
>>
>> As far as i am informed this one is a red herring.
>
> I think that usually when "if only we could remove X, things would be simpler" is incorrect.  The common >whipping boy here is formats.  "Why can't we get rid of formats??" people cry.  "They're just taking up space!"
>
> Well, in reality, deleting formats would not be such a big win.  Except, maybe, to reclaim the syntax that their >special punctuation variables occupy.  LeoNerd was talking about (or possibly implemented?) a means to hide >those variables away to free up the syntax.  Very nice!
>
> On the other hand, there are some places that the complexity is present, and my assertion (which I'm happy to >see challenged) is that the more interesting places to remove it are those where it's most difficult to remove in a >safe way.  unicode_strings is one example.

Agreed on all of that.

> At any rate:  I agree that "allow us to eject troublesome parts of the implementation" is not the major driving >force for changing defaults in any way currently being floated.

I don't think this is entirely accurate.

I've seen several people speak in ways that make me think that one of the reasons they want unversioned default changes is because they believe it makes this possible and they consider it a good thing. When detailing counter-proposals I ran into objections of "but wouldn't that mean supporting Perl 5 forever?!" and similar comments that indicate people believe that removing things is a necessary step towards getting good things.

Thus, i think the contradiction and the truth values of various things here ought to be inspected very explicitly and such notions confirmed with specificity, or dismantled as appropriate.

-- 
With regards,
Christian Walde
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