Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2022
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2022, at 08:23, Dave Mitchell wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 08:00:10PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote: > > Porters, > > > > Here's what I think, on the matter of eliminating that pesky magic true > value. > > And here's what I think. > > > I think you and I are in agreement, except for one small matter: I think > that it'd be useful to say "module evaluated to false, despite having at > some point enabled yield true, which probably indicates a mistake." If > this ends up being onerous, I think it's something we can do without. But > I think it will help users who do what Ovid mentioned doing: writing all > their code in a block. The feature under discussion is the only one that > would really be affected by writing your code that way. That's why I think > it's plausible it's happening. > > Why don't we start with just implementing the basic feature and then we > have a year to think more about the warning if we want. 🙂 > > Also, we know it needs a name. I suggest 'module_true'. If the feature > is on, then this module will be treated as evaluating true. I don't want > to say 'require_ignores_false' or something because that could imply it > changes the behavior of "require" in this scope. > > 'module_true' sounds very generic. Having 'require' as part of its name would be good, as it affects how require is behaving. I don't get why you wrote that one shouldn't imply that its behavior changes because that's just what it does: - "require" ignores the return value to determine if the module was successfully loaded.Thread Previous | Thread Next