Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2022
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 3:39 PM Tomasz Konojacki <me@xenu.pl> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 19:20:41 +0000 (UTC) > Ovid via perl5-porters <perl5-porters@perl.org> wrote: > > > * Strict, warnings, utf8 source, signatures, and "no feature 'indirect'" > by default > > We can't make the "module" keyword visible without a feature flag. "use > VERSION" will still be needed and that enables all the nice stuff > anyway. Well, apart from "use utf8". It's been decided that it's a bad > default: > https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2021/08/msg261164.html > > > * :export is handled natively leaving the import() free for other uses > > I don't see why a new keyword is needed for that. If we want ':export' > attribute (which is an interesting idea), it can be implemented without > the "module" keyword. Perl already supports attributes on subs and we > already have a few built-in ones (such as :const, :method etc.). > > The "package" keyword currently doesn't take attributes, but I think it > can be changed. "package Foo :bar" is a syntax error, so it probably > doesn't conflict with anything. > > We should be always wary of adding new keywords, especially the ones that > do the same thing as already existing keywords but slightly differently. > We will be stuck with both keywords forever. It will make the language > more complex and confusing. > > Of course, I'm not saying we should never do this, but we must carefully > weigh the costs and benefits. In this case, I'm not convinced the > benefits are big enough. > > >* Yields a `1` to avoid needing to add `1` at the end of every file. > > I think we should get rid of that misfeature completely. > +1 to all your points. Prior discussion on "return true": https://github.com/Perl/perl5/issues/17921 -DanThread Previous | Thread Next