Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris

Re^3: Update to smartmatch

by ikegami (Pope)
on Dec 26, 2017 at 19:51 UTC ( #1206233=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^2: Update to smartmatch
in thread Update to smartmatch

I also have not ever used "smartmatch" and friends. I have never encountered it in code I've worked on at various employers,

I think you're trying to prove they're not a desired features, but it's far more likely that you've worked a companies that sensibly avoid using experimental (unstable) features in production code.

It's because of the incredible confusion and instability around the "features,"

There's no confusion; smartmatching is an experimental feature, not a stable feature. This will still be the case in 5.28. Continue not using it unless you want to be a beta tester.

I am alarmed at the process with which the changes have been already merged into bleadperl

Aye, there were problems, which were resolved by the creation of the policy and ability to make new features experimental.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Update to smartmatch
by 1nickt (Monsignor) on Dec 27, 2017 at 00:10 UTC

    Hi Ikegami, thanks for your reply. I was expressing alarm not at the introduction of smartmatch back in the day, but at the way in which it has been reimplemented in 5.27, i.e., apparently *not* following the policy its original introduction gave rise to. This is according to the articles mentioned above and my reading of the p5p thread, specifically that new keywords that have since almost universally met with scorn, were merged into blead with little or no discussion on the list, let alone off it.

    I know that you are a p5p regular, perhaps you know different. Your perspective would be welcomed.

    You can say that any sensible production code has always avoided smartmatch and given/when, but in fact it has been used in several CPAN modules that are themselves widely used in production, e.g. Type::Tiny and Try::Tiny, so isn't even a developer who has him/herself studiously avoided it because it's experimental, at risk of their code breaking through such changes?

    The way forward always starts with a minimal test.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1206233]
and the shadows deepen...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (4)
As of 2018-03-23 03:55 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    When I think of a mole I think of:

    Results (287 votes). Check out past polls.