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

Re: on changing perl's behavior

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Yuki Kimoto
Date:
April 4, 2021 23:58
Subject:
Re: on changing perl's behavior
Message ID:
CAExogxNV_Yyqw4bhzRZXDC1BN-znUPR2pBsu8s-qQa+KmuSGJg@mail.gmail.com
Personally, why not use the following syntax

use v5.26;
use v5.28;
use v5.30;
use v5.32;

1. that don't include warnings program.

2. The features introduced in the minor version are hard to understand. It
feels like a feature that early adopters try.


2021年4月4日(日) 12:08 Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org>:

> No, I didn't fall off the list!  Between some non-Perl obligations and
> waiting on talking to the rest of the steering council, this email has been
> waiting to get written.  (Also, I allowed myself to enjoy the long weekend
> a little!)
>
> In my last long email, I was writing about the conflicts between:
>
>    - wanting it to be easy to have "the best perl" to write in
>    - wanting your existing, working code to keep on running without edits
>
> …and other related tensions.
>
> One thing that we talk about a lot is "use vX".  The idea behind "use vX"
> is that it gives you a one-stop shop to say "give me the best set of
> defaults [according to p5p consensus]", and that this set of defaults can
> be left intact indefinitely so that ten years down the line, a program that
> said "use v5.12.0" can still run with largely unaltered behavior.  I say
> "largely" unaltered, because we have altered it.  The use of qw(...) as
> if it was (qw(...)) was deprecated and removed, for example.  This
> allowed for simplification of the language implementation, and we could do
> it even though using "qw" in this way was never guarded by a named
> "feature".  We warned that the feature was going, then we deleted it and
> smoothed out some wrinkly code.
>
> The same thing could be done again for, say, indirect object syntax.  When
> encountered, perl could begin warning now, and then in a few years, it
> could be fatal.  In theory, this could simplify the grammar.  I think that
> this mechanism (deprecate, then remove) is *orthogonal* to the addition
> of feature guards.  Being able to lexically disable indirect object syntax
> is a help to programmers who know they will never *want* to use it.  It
> is not a direct path to removing the feature — but it can be helpful on
> that front.  That is, as more people disable indirect syntax by default,
> the idea of removing it becomes more palatable.
>
> So this may be an accurate set of statements about how we've done things
> so far:
>
>    - 1: We make new behaviors opt-in when they would break existing code
>    if on by default.
>    - 2: We make new behaviors on by default if they could not appear in
>    existing, working code.
>    - 3: We remove behaviors when they are making the language
>    implementation harder to work on *and* cause only acceptable amounts
>    of inconvenience.
>    - 4: When a behavior is going to be removed, it first issues a
>    deprecation "this is being removed!" warning for several versions.
>    - 5: We make old "bad" behaviors lexically optional when we think
>    people will (or should) want to turn them off by default in new code.  (I
>    would argue that this is exactly what "use strict" did in v5.0.)
>    - 6: We bundle all the options (both opt in and opt out) in "use vX"
>    to make it easy to get them all.
>
>
> I think some of the discussion of new defaults and future perl changes
> have also had these things in mind:
>
>    - 7: We will alter the default opting in or out of behaviors over
>    time, so that the starting position is closer to the ideal.
>    - 8: When a default behavior is going to be changed, encountering the
>    behavior when no opt in/out has been explicitly performed, a warning is
>    issued, giving the user a nudge to either add a "use feature" or to update
>    their code.
>
>
> Item 6 is built on the idea that writing a bunch of boilerplate is bad,
> and writing close to zero is better.  Item 7 says "zero is better than
> nearly zero."  But it *also* says "just adding vX to my code is a bridge
> too far."
>
> That is:  "I want all my code to have strict, warnings, no indirect object
> syntax.  I believe any violation of this is a bug on my part, and I want it
> applied everywhere."  Turning on "use strict; use warnings; no feature
> 'indirect'" everywhere gets exactly that.  Saying "use vX will turn all
> that on [and a bunch of other stuff you don't know how to evaluate]" is not
> necessarily a big win.  If an organization wants to have a standard
> boilerplate, and users see "we run perl-5.20, but use v5.20 turns on
> unicode strings, and I don't know what that does to my existing code, but I
> know that it sounds scary", then they are not likely to add it to their old
> code.  And once it's not in their old code, will it become standard in
> their new code?
>
> I think that item 7, above, is (in part!) built on this concern.  "Users
> are never going to go back and add one of our big omnibus feature bundles.
> We can't possibly turn all that stuff on without their opting in.  On the
> other hand, we can guarantee that every program running meets these minimal
> criteria with zero edits to the source by just changing those defaults.
> Only already-bad code will be broken."
>
> There are a few assumptions built into that.  Most often objected to:  the
> assertion that code that does not say "no strict" and then violates
> strictures is bad.  But other points worth considering:  "users don't want
> to use vX because they don't know what it does" and "users don't want to
> add use vX to old code [for the same reason]" and "I want to know that all
> my code follows the same rules out of the gate without chasing up any set
> of use statements everywhere."
>
> And built into *that* is the question of "my code".  Is that "all the
> code we run" or "all the code we run *that we wrote*."
>
> *Anyway:*  I'm not going to address all of that now and act like I have
> an answer that will please everyone.  I do think it's at least a bunch of
> the "new defaults" argument broken down into pieces.
>
> My question is more like this:  We assume that "just start all code with
> use vX" is workable for new code.  What can we do to encourage users to
> feel good about how they take their existing, running code and get it up
> closer to "the best perl we know" options?  Here, I'm assuming that there's
> a lower cost of ownership to your code if you can know that all your code
> can be skimmed the same way, because it's got the same set of options.  But
> you now want to take your older code and stick the same use vX at the top
> as you have in your new code.  How do we help users feel confident in
> staying up to date with the "use vX" of their current perl-X?
>
> --
> rjbs
>

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