Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2021
On Thu, 09 Dec 2021 21:45:13 +0100 Tomasz Konojacki <me@xenu.pl> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 20:32:10 +0000 > Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com> wrote: > > > So by your logic, we're not allowed to change the behaviour of @_ in > > signature subs (the main thrust of this thread)? > > As I said in the "getting signatures out of experimental" thread, I'm > OK with @_ removal because I don't consider it a dramatic change. > Overwhelming majority of signatured subs don't use @_ and those that > do can be modified to stop using it. Having read the prior arguments, I'm kinda with Dave on this one. @DB::args is already shockingly broken in a lot of ways. Making it always appear empty when called within a signatured sub is, honestly, not the worst of its already-current breakages. > If there was an alternative to @DB::args, my stance on its removal > would've been different. Perhaps we need to create a better replacement, then. A new function (*function*, not weird side-effect of a variable being populated when a core op is called from a specifically-named caller package) whose presence indicates "hey perl, don't throw away args from the stack, but remember them". This can then act as a far more reliable interface onto the arguments, however they are implemented. -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/Thread Previous | Thread Next