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

Re: Pre-RFC: Rename SVf_UTF8 et al.

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Leon Timmermans
Date:
November 12, 2021 14:48
Subject:
Re: Pre-RFC: Rename SVf_UTF8 et al.
Message ID:
CAHhgV8jM1LgGLrOQotkLV6_SV79Pwn7mqU=irmBNOdKT6Zg=Dg@mail.gmail.com
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:02 PM Felipe Gasper <felipe@felipegasper.com>
wrote:

>
> > On Sep 3, 2021, at 10:24 AM, Paul LeoNerd Evans <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 13:18:34 -0400
> > Felipe Gasper <felipe@felipegasper.com> wrote:
> >
> >> PROPOSAL: Rename the following identifiers in code and documentation,
> >> leaving macros for the old ones as aliases:
> >> - SVf_UTF8        -> SVf_PVUPGRADED
> >> - SvUTF8          -> Sv_PVUPGRADED
> >> - SvUTF8_on       -> Sv_PVUPGRADED_on
> >> - SvUTF8_off      -> Sv_PVUPGRADED_off
> >> - SvPOK_only_UTF8 -> SvPOK_only_UPGRADED
> >
> > This got briefly mentioned as a side-comment on PSC today.
> >
> > Thoughts are "What about WIDE"? As in
> >
> >  SVf_WIDE (though really I'd want to call that SVppv_WIDE)
> >  SvWIDE
> >  SvWIDE_on
> >  etc...
>
> Now that this thread seems to have “settled” a bit, I wonder where this
> idea stands in the general mindset:
>
>
> a) Good idea, worth the overhead of renaming a long-established identifier.
>
> b) Good idea, but *not* worth that overhead.
>
> c) Bad idea; the status quo is better than either of the proposed renames.
>
> d) … some other stance?
>

 I strongly believe it's not worth the overhead (from an effort and
confusion POV), and less strongly feel it's not a good idea.

Leon

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