Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2021
From: Dan Book
August 12, 2021 15:08
Message ID: CABMkAVVhOjt-aD9G3Ats2dte_BMb5NqYh3Lq+yJ+RGfr-HL01A@mail.gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 10:51 AM Oodler 577 via perl5-porters <
> * Paul "LeoNerd" Evans <email@example.com> [2021-08-12 13:48:29
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:24:43 +0000 (UTC)
> > Ovid via perl5-porters <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > 'cuz we know y'all love a debate ...
> > > We're working on the Corinna RFC and it won't be sent soon, but due
> > > to Corinna's design, we have a subtle issue that isn't shared by most
> > > other OO languages. In short, lexical variables (declared in a method
> > > or in a signature) can hide the instance variables. Twigils is one
> > > way of solving that issue. I've described it in more detail here:
> > > https://github.com/Ovid/Cor/issues/29
> > >
> > > We have not made a decision, but we'd like to know if P5P would
> > > consider this acceptable or not. We know that for many people,
> > > twigils can be a hot-button issue.
> > It should also be noted that this is one of the rare few design
> > decisions we're having to treat entirely theoretically, based purely on
> > people's thoughts and opinions, and we can't back it up with observed
> > fact from actual practice.
> > This is because core perl doesn't make it possible (or at least, I
> > haven't found a way to make it possible) to try implementing twigils in
> > Object::Pad. Many of the other design shapes and choices in Corinna
> > have been tested out experimentally by writing real code in
> > Object::Pad, but this particular issue doesn't lend itself to such
> > experimentation.
> I feel compelled to point out that this is heading in the wrong direction.
> This was apparent to me when I had to consult Perl 6/Raku documentation to
> see what a "twigil" was.
> So if there is a "debate" to be had (here), it would be regarding how
> far from "trad" perl 5 you wish to deviate. My concern is that it is
> heading towards Perl 6/Raku - the risk being that you'll lose the core
> perl 5 audience and find yourself competing with Raku, which has a 20
> yr head start.
> Bear in mind, I have no issues with Raku; but I think it'd be virtual
> suicide for any effort that is trying to improve the POOP experience
> for Perl 5 and it's large, diverse base of users.
This seems like a pointless concern. We don't need to make decisions for
Perl based on whether they are Rakuish or not and nobody aside from us will
care. Past feature imports from Raku have varied from widely successful to
terrible failures, each needs to be judged on its effect on Perl rather
than its effect on Raku. However, this is not even a feature, it's syntax.