|Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
Re^2: Recap: The Future of Perl 5by Ovid (Cardinal)
|on Aug 24, 2018 at 11:35 UTC
Provide an API which allows a type library module to define types such as my Str $x where Str isn't a package name ...
Again, that fails horribly, IMHO. For the shops which adopt that, every time I go into a shop, I have to discover how their implementation of "Str" is different from the implementation of "Str" at my last shop, which in turn is different from the implementation of "Str" I would expect in other languages. Core types that people expect should be in the core (and not in libraries I have to remember to load!). Further, their behavior should be as boring and predictable as possible. As for an extensible API? Sure, I can get behind that if the arguments which would invariably ensue are brief. Otherwise, the bike-shedding would stand a good chance of guaranteeing that nothing would get done.
Bundle a module with core which defines a bunch of predefined types. Perhaps automatically load it if a recent enough use VERSION line is given.
Again, if you have to remember to do a particular thing to get benefits, it hurts the Perl community. For example, use strict; use warnings; should have been the default a long time ago, with additional action taken to disable them. It's less common now, but we still have to fight to remind developers to enable strict. That's years of arguing over a basic issue that could have been spent more profitably writing code and developing the language.