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

Re: This is not an RFC to bring modern OO into the Perl core

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
June 23, 2021 05:42
Subject:
Re: This is not an RFC to bring modern OO into the Perl core
Message ID:
20210623054217.GH11066@etla.org
[This mail was drafted last night, and is already technically out of date]

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 12:44:51PM +0000, Ovid via perl5-porters wrote:
> Hi all,
> Recently Nick wrote that before we send an RFC, we should send what I think of as "an RFC for an RFC":
> > 1: Here is a problem> 2: Here is the syntax that I'm proposing
> > 3: Here are the benefits of this
> > 4: Here are potential problems

It was an "elevator pitch", and I think your "take 2" version nailed it.

> The following is deliberately brief as I know many of you are familiar, at least roughly, with the Corinna project, but it's hard to summarize something this large. Further, we've been stripping everything out of the MVP that we think we reasonably can, but still, this is not as brief as what Nick asked for. (Nick, I still might have that photo of you with a tea cozy on your head at OSCON, so be kind).

I know that Elaine has photos of me in a sombre swigging tequila from a
bottle, but clearly that's the tequila's fault, not mine. But I totally
don't remember a tea cozy - what the heck was I drinking - *just* tea? I
must have been really jet lagged. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

(Dammit, and why are we talking about blackmailing the PSC, instead of
bribing it? I'm sure I could do with *more* tea - a friend came to visit and
gave me gin. Came to visit again and gave me tea. I finished the tea first.
(The gin was nice too, but it seems that I drink more tea than gin.))

> 5. Not asked for, but ...
> We don't plan to send the RFC for a while. Instead, this is a sounding board for your receptiveness to it. We're still working on the RFC because, while Paul's already finished much of the implementation, we don't feel rushing this is a good idea. Hence, over a year and a half between first announcement and this email (and over two years since development started).

Phew!

In that, I knew that you'd been working hard on Corinna in the background,
but I wasn't aware that you were ready to send RFCs. This is a nice problem
to have.

Corinna might be ready for the RFC process, but I'm not confident that the
RFC process is ready for Corinna. At least not, this week. (Next week, I'm
no longer on the PSC. It becomes SEP, in theory. In practice, I suspect that
they'll delegate me the hat for a while yet. But that's their call, not
mine.)


On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 10:04:27PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote:

> I would definitely like for Perl to provide many improved OO features, and while I bet you and I could debate the fine points of many small details, let's do that later.

Agree.

> In general, I want to say that this is welcome.  What I'm most keen to get a handle on is "where it all gets shoved in".  That is:  I can imagine that this is "perl5.git gets oo.c which handles all this" or "we need to add three new parser hooks and a new kind of SV" or "this will all run on top of the existing core, but I want it to ship with perl."
> 
> Can you (or Paul) give even a rough idea of where you think this will fall?  It will help set my level of circumspection later. ;)

This is also what I'm wondering, and I note that Paul has already started
filling in details.

Nicholas Clark

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