Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2022
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 4:29 PM Paul "LeoNerd" Evans <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: > > After further discussion with PSC, we'd like to keep moving this > forward. There's still time to add new functions to builtin:: in time > for 5.36, and it would be nice to get these in. > > We agree that they should not be named "isnumber" and "isstring", > mostly because of your concerns about leading people to think they do > something that they don't. > > I'd like to suggest you write up an RFC on this request, perhaps > beginning with the names > > builtin::was_originally_number > builtin::was_originally_string > > They're sufficiently long and unwieldy as to mildly discourage people > from using them except when absolutely necessary (read: on JSON > serialisers and similar), and the name itself doesn't suggest it tells > you current information about the actual type of a value, merely tells > you the history on how it started. I've created an RFC PR: https://github.com/Perl/RFCs/pull/13 In the RFC, I'm using the names builtin::created_as_number and builtin::created_as_string. Justification is included in the RFC, but I think these better match what we want their return values to represent. And I personally, was_originally_number feels really awkward as a function name. The names could still be changed of course; I'm not overly attached to what I've chosen.Thread Previous | Thread Next