http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=11107599


in reply to Re^2: p5p vs CPAN
in thread p5p vs CPAN

In that case, it was always a bug, it just wasn't reported by Perl as such.

If you want more "influence", consider becoming a part of p5p. It's as easy as reading the mailing list and/or writing a mail to it:

Please note that these are all volunteers, so taking a belligerent stance may not get your case heard in the way you want. But if you are interested in actually fixing the problems, I'm sure you will be welcome there.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: p5p vs CPAN
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 17, 2019 at 13:06 UTC
    taking a belligerent stance may not get your case heard

    I'm not really that belligerent, just trying to be funny about a tragic subject, with a somewhat frustrated rant. Sorry if my sense of humor offends anyone. I am serious, and silly simultaneously, for pure enjoyment.

[reply]
Re^4: p5p vs CPAN
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 17, 2019 at 14:00 UTC
    In that case, it was always a bug, it just wasn't reported by Perl as such.

    Maybe it wasn't reported as a bug because it was a feature? I'm curious how "fixing" that particular "bug" really improved Perl? Does it 1) make new things possible, or 2) make things that should have worked function properly, or does it just remove one of a million shortcuts and 3) break the holy grail: CPAN? (I understand what is "wrong" with for qw(), but don't care! DWIM)

    if you are interested in actually fixing the problems

    My preferences in order: 

    1. Someone never decided to cause this problem.
2. Someone with more power and skill fixes the problem.
   a. Repair Perl backwards compatability.
   b. Repair CPAN distributions.
3. I fix the problem locally and am happy that it works.
4. I have to work to fix the problem for everyone.
    I know you want me to do 4 because of 3 but I'm looking at 1 with an occasional glance at 2a =)
[reply]

      Quoting [

      ... These would sometimes get the lexer into the wrong state, so they didn't fully work, and the similar foreach qw(a b c) {...} that one might expect to be permitted never worked at all.

      So, just because they worked for you, they didn't work in all cases, and I suppose fixing the bug made the code simpler than keeping the special case around.

      But I'm sure you already read the post by afoken where this was explained. If you have further questions, I'm sure they can be answered from the git repository, or by asking the people involved.

      Again, I perceive your tone as confrontative, so you might want to work on that before communicating with other people about it. If you think that "p5p breaks things to spite you", you should maybe read more of the communication of p5p. p5p is not some dark cabal, and you will find that most changes to Perl get discussed on the mailing list.

      If you think that Perl should not change, why do you keep upgrading perl?

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom