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

Re: 5.36.0: bareword filehandles, indirect

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Sergey Aleynikov
Date:
May 15, 2022 10:58
Subject:
Re: 5.36.0: bareword filehandles, indirect
Message ID:
CAKNj8S2imV9-Mr5JtCxn-tF7iS_s1ARV7rgTJ=2GNg4ZxxuH-g@mail.gmail.com
I've changed all use'es to 'use 5.036' in our ~200k kloc codebase and
it at least parsed & started. The only 'strange' (but understandable)
error i've faced was reporting for the following situation:

package Z;
use Foo::Bar;

sub new {}
my $foo = new Foo::Bar(...); # Undefined subroutine Foo::Bar called

Maybe it should be documented in perldelta explicitly.

Best regards,
Sergey Aleynikov

On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 4:39 PM Ricardo Signes
<perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:
>
> Porters,
>
> Today, I'm applying LeoNerd's patch to put bareword_filehandles back into the v5.36 bundle.  We do this with sadness, but it's the right thing to do.  Yesterday on the PSC call, we wondered whether we should also put indirect back.  We'd rather not, but the question is how thoroughly it has been tested for weird behaviors.
>
> Remember: we're about to ship v5.36.0, and to encourage everybody writing new code on it to use "use v5.36" to get the best Perl they can.  What if removing indirect isn't giving them the best Perl, not because indirect is good, but because its removal causes problems we haven't yet tested.
>
> Our question is:  Can anyone out there attest to significant use of "no feature 'indirect'" in real code without difficulty?  At present, we are leaning toward putting it back and to producing a testing regimen for "what would it be like to turn this on in existing code, and would it break anything other than what we want it to?"
>
> --
> rjbs

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About