Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2022
On Sat, 14 May 2022 22:54:14 +0200 "Christian Walde" <walde.christian@gmail.com> wrote: > That said, after inspecting them myself: > > no indirect; causes indirect-parsed calls to throw a warning which > can be elevated to an error. This is useful in preventing code from > doing the wrong thing. > > no feature 'indirect'; appears to cause the parser not even consider > the indirect parse path in the first place, meaning the code does > what it was intended to do in the first place. > > The latter is vastly more preferrable to me, personally. I am not > being made to go back and change what i wrote. While that's a useful observation, the question is less about the idea and more abou the actual implementation. We know the idea of `no feature indirect` is good - we're wondering if there are any implementation bugs. no feature "bareword_filehandles" is also a good idea, but an 11th-hour bug has been found in it meaning we had to back that one out again. It's a shame. In recent memory, 5.34 released the try/catch syntax that very soon after release, someone found a bug in it. In both of these cases, they are failures because the proposed idea was insufficiently-well tested in a wide variety of situations before being declared releaseable. We're worried if the same is going to happen with indirect. -- 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