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

Re: Twigils

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
August 20, 2021 16:37
Subject:
Re: Twigils
Message ID:
20210820163744.GI11066@etla.org
Re-ordered to avoid top posting.

> > чт, 12 авг. 2021 г. в 14:25, Ovid via perl5-porters <
> > perl5-porters@perl.org>:
> > > Twigils is one way of solving that issue.
> >
> > Nobody's asked yet, but what's the price? Is new parser hook enough,
> > or this would be a forever-binding code block that exists in core
> > solely to support a single CPAN module?

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:25:09AM -0500, David Nicol wrote:
> this would be a nice use case for a more robust macro language / source
> rewriter. The twigils could get rewritten into valid miniperl. As well as a
> lot of core features, for a general refactoring of the parsing steps.
> Leading to "perl in perl" which AFAIK nobody has actually followed through
> with.

At first read your message seems on topic and reasonable.

But I keep thinking - THIS ADDS NO VALUE.

Hence my reply.

In that,

1) no-one has any good idea *how* to write a viable macro-language/source
   re-writer
2) Saying "this would be a good use case for it" is true, but pointless if
   we don't have one, or any route to one
3) repeatedly mentioning something as a "nice to have" doesn't change this.

Hence your reply is not useful, because it does not advance this discussion.
Or any discussion.


It doesn't add any value to this to say "This hypothetical other technology
that doesn't exist is a viable alternative to something we do have"


I'm asking you (and everyone, really) to stop mentioning concepts that don't
have any viable implementation. If we're proposing feature A, please stick
to insightful comments/observations for approaches that we can deliver it
using the technology that we have, rather than proposing feature B as a
prerequisite and hence a blocker.


(If you have some idea how to implement feature B, that's cool, but it
ought to be on a new thread.)


And as Neil and others have written previously, sending "harmless" mails is
not harmless - there is a cost to everyone else to read (or actively ignore)
mails sent to the list - "but you don't have to read my message" is *not* a
valid reason to continue writing off-topic messages.

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