Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2021
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:14:44 +0000 "Paul \"LeoNerd\" Evans" <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: > Ohright, yes that's an excellent point. The whole lot probably ought > to be warning that, indeed. The more I think about it, the more I'm suddenly not sure if actually every builtin function ought to be warning that it is experimental. The entire list currently looks like this: true, false # names for !!1 and !!0 constants isbool # a wrapper for SvIsBOOL weaken, unweaken, isweak # copied from Scalar::Util blessed, refaddr, reftype Of these 9 functions, 2 are names for constants that have been in perl for basically all of time, and 6 are copies of same-named same behaviour from Scalar::Util where they've been for a good decade or more. Only `isbool` is actually new here. I wonder quite what the overall "experimental" status of these things ought to be. In practice the design of the latter 6 of these is entirely fixed, being a clone of the "set in stone" design from Scalar::Util. Perhaps the idea of "builtin" in the first place is experimental, but at least those final 6 functions can't really be very flexible within it. They're constrained by the past ~20 years of Scalar::Util usage. The same however can't be said for actual new designs - maybe some mythical trim() that turns up at some point in the future, or new things related to type systems, object systems, whatever else we might add down the line. Overall then I'm not sure whether it makes sense to just add a single "experimental::builtin" category that can be turned on or off in bulk, because that doesn't necessarily capture the varying degrees to which each individual function might be considered experimental. -- 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