develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2022

Re: Pre-RFC: a `module` keyword

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Dan Book
January 24, 2022 20:51
Re: Pre-RFC: a `module` keyword
Message ID:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 3:39 PM Tomasz Konojacki <> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 19:20:41 +0000 (UTC)
> Ovid via perl5-porters <> 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:
> > * :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":


Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About