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

Re: RFC: Multiple-alias syntax for for

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Nicholas Clark
June 23, 2021 09:01
Re: RFC: Multiple-alias syntax for for
Message ID:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:59:32PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021, at 12:13 AM, Tony Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 09:22:10AM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > 2) Should it issue an experimental warning?
> > 
> > I think it should at least have an experimental warning, mostly as a
> > "coders haven't beating on the implementation for N years, there might
> > be bugs" warning.
> I think this could be marked experimental in v5.36 and, most likely, not experimental in v5.38.  It would be okay, and I wouldn't object.

So, this is catch-up from what we discussed on Friday...

Consensus seemed to be that

1) we didn't need a feature guard
2) we should have an experimental warning

which effectively has resolved the open issues.
So the (outgoing) PSC felt that we could make this state transition:

                             Provisional RFC
              "we think this idea is worth implementing"
              (We have a firm idea of what we want to do)
                               Accepted RFC
                  "we think this plan looks viable"
               (There is a sane plan for how to do it)

and I have updated the RFC with all of this, and the status tables at

At which point "time passes" and once I have an implementation that I
believe implements the RFC, I open a PR with it.

So, time passes...

and it's regular code review time.

I guess the reviewers ask

* does it implement what the RFC specified?

in addition to the usual

* does the code have bugs or other defects?
* on balance, does merging this give a net improvement?

(and the trial process says this is a code review decision, not a PSC

Nicholas Clark

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About