* Dan Book <grinnz@gmail.com> [2022-06-08 23:32:32 -0400]: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 10:56 PM Oodler 577 <oodler577@sdf-eu.org> wrote: > > > * Yuki Kimoto <kimoto.yuki@gmail.com> [2022-06-08 17:47:27 +0900]: > > > > > 2022-6-8 0:56 Dan Book <grinnz@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 5:06 AM Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> What would the effect of yield_true be on a Perl source file used as > > > >> simple > > > >> configuration data like the following, which I have actually > > practiced... > > > >> > > > > > > > > No effect. This is only for require (and thus use). > > > > > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > > > "yield_true" feature doesn't affect "do". > > > > > > Does this mean "yield_true" is not simple syntax sugar at the end of "1"? > > > > This is beginning to sound like Test::More. > > > > use Test::More tests => 42; > > ... > > > > or > > > > use Test::More; > > > > ... > > > > done_testing; > > > > So maybe follow that kind of pattern. But I am still lost why > > typing "use feature 'yield_true';" is better than "1;". > > > > > This is not a feature we?d expect people to use explicitly, but would be > part of the version bundle, so you?d get it for free with a future `use > v5.XY`. Okay, thank you for your continued patience. Final thought: I guess frankly speaking this seems like it's just going to cause confusion among long timers and provide no benefit to new comers. A fair compromise would be a combination of, * improved documentation on the feature behind the "1;" boiler plate (because TBH I don't know what a false-y value there would allow one to do or not do). * something meaningful like Test::More's "done_testing;" that can actually benefit new users. Like something I mentioned before just to make the point, "egakcap" ('package' backwards), but then again why bother when this works (upon testing): package test; # does work like this noaw # ... pkg stuff __PACKAGE__ And just spitballing here, but what would happen if C<__END__> got converted to that "1;"? As far as I know it's just tells the interpreter "no more code past here" - so what better way to be assured that a "1;" is okay? package test; # doesn't actually work like this # ... pkg stuff __END__ But what about putting nothing? I think that's a terrible idea on account of the decades of having to do that. I put it in the same camp as removing sigils or semi-colons. Cheers, Brett > > -Dan -- -- oodler@cpan.org oodler577@sdf-eu.org SDF-EU Public Access UNIX System - http://sdfeu.org irc.perl.org #openmp #pdl #nativeThread Previous | Thread Next