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

Re: Pre-RFC: yield true feature

Thread Previous
From:
Yuki Kimoto
Date:
June 8, 2022 08:30
Subject:
Re: Pre-RFC: yield true feature
Message ID:
CAExogxN+2ABpOUmZ5jgjOKADGX4L+80DzO6Xgb7ppasC3C9JsA@mail.gmail.com
I also feel these two are different features.

2022-6-7 9:40 Dan Book <grinnz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 8:17 PM Yuki Kimoto <kimoto.yuki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2022-6-7 7:07 Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> 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] https://github.com/Perl/RFCs/pull/16
>>>
>>>
>> 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


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