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

Re: Pre-RFC: yield true feature

Thread Previous
Yuki Kimoto
June 8, 2022 08:30
Re: Pre-RFC: yield true feature
Message ID:
I also feel these two are different features.

2022-6-7 9:40 Dan Book <> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 8:17 PM Yuki Kimoto <> wrote:
>> 2022-6-7 7:07 Neil Bowers <> wrote:
>>> This is a retrospective Pre-RFC for a proposal from Curtis, for which he
>>> submitted a draft RFC[1]. We nearly missed it when reviewing proposals
>>> in-flight in our PSC meeting last week, and decided to trigger a discussion
>>> here, to reinforce the process.
>>> ...
>>> [1]
>> I want to hear the haarg' proposal a little more.
>> >There is another model that could be used. could always ignore the
>> return value from the file if the feature was enabled. This is simpler than
>> the previous option, but accomplishes essentially the same thing. It still
>> needs special handling in , but doesn't need to care about an implicit vs
>> explicit return. In practice, the return value from a ed file is not usable
>> for anything. The only impact it will have on perl's behavior is throwing
>> an error for a false value. This is better done by throwing a real error.
>> If there is no real purpose for returning an explicit value, why complicate
>> the model by trying to handle specially?
>> Does this mean changing the behavior of "use", "require", "do" in the "yield_true"
>> feature?
> Yes, and the feature would need a different name.
> I think it is overall a better idea, but practically, it may not be better
> to implement.
> The overall goal of this feature is so people no longer need to put "1;"
> at the end of their module for no reason (as perceived by most users), or
> have spurious errors if they forget to. For a user to accomplish this in
> their module, they need a feature they can enable in their module, not in
> the place it gets required.
> If we only implement a feature to change how "require" behaves, users
> won't be able to stop putting "1;" in their modules unless they can ensure
> their module is only called by code using the new feature.
> But there's also another option: we could do both. Though it seems a
> little unnecessary for such a trivial feature.
> -Dan

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