Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2022
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:17 AM Graham Knop <haarg@haarg.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:10 AM Alexander Hartmaier > <alex.hartmaier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > It does not change how "require" acts in the scope of the feature. It > changes how "require" acts when returning from where the feature is > active. > Examples are king, just explained your text to myself while I wanted to write 'the other way round', but your're correct: package A; # in the scope of package A use 'require_ignore_false'; # no true return value here, let's make it explicitly return false for clarity 0; package B: my $rv = require 'A'; # $rv is 0 which is false in boolean context # no error in scope of package B although false is returned Hope that helps others as well to clarify.Thread Previous | Thread Next