in reply to Re^3: Modernizing the Postmodern Language?
in thread Modernizing the Postmodern Language?

> your code will adhere to strict and warnings no matter what."

Again, they said that no strict and no warnings are still possible.

The same for use v5.10.0

So no "no matter what."

If Perl 7 defaults help reducing the copy and paste boilerplate from Perl 4 I'm full for it.

Guacamole is Sawyers private project, it'll have to prove itself.

Disclaimer: I'm not involved in the decision making and have no behind the scene insight.

Just interested in a fair and sober discussion.

> if that disqualifies my thoughts here so be it.

It doesn't disqualify you.

One has to be aware that this board is full of trolls and sockpuppets.

Considering the post history helps.

You are speculating about insights into the "leader's" mind and intentions, but we have no insight into yours.

Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Modernizing the Postmodern Language?
by WaywardCode (Sexton) on Jun 30, 2020 at 15:16 UTC
    Again, they said that no strict and no warnings are still possible.

    Reverting the new defaults is possible for v7, but they explicitly said it would not necessarily be true for v8. If Perl resumes its pre-5 version pace, that's only a few years away. Even if reverting the defaults remains possible, the programs where strict and warnings are least convenient are 5-line throw-away programs run in implicit -n or -p loops, where turning them off or saying use vars qw// is just getting in the way for no benefit. For one-liners, it could mean the difference between using Perl and not bothering. I claim (and don't appear to be alone, looking at p5p), the better tradeoff is to put use v7 in a file and get all the new defaults. I already use use v5.20 or whatever in my longer scripts, so it seems totally natural, but I guess according to Sawyer almost nobody does this.

    Re-watching the p7 talk now, again, I really don't like how certain patterns are labelled "bad." The Perl I know does not get overly opinionated on how I write things. These talks bother me enough to crawl out of the woodwork and ask the Monks if I'm wrong to be concerned. Maybe I am wrong.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      I don't think that the details are fixed yet, they will be discussed.

      And yes, when using the debugger as repl I wouldn't need or want strictures.

      But I see the need among teams to be able to enforce an opinionated Perl. (I kept calling this the use anal pragma till I had the idea to Google for "anal perl" ;)

      My favored approach is to have "master" pragmas for different use cases.

      And like I already said, my gut feeling tells me that something like use v7 will be the first solution, if only because they don't have that much time for fancier but riskier approaches.

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

        Yes, I like the idea of master use-based pragmas, which could even be adjusted per version. In an alternate timeline, it would be cool if they had kept the feature-bundle separate from the anality-level. Something like:

        use v5.32 :style qw/module bnf-grammar/;

        ... (where 'module' style might imply strict, warnings, no-indirect, etc. and bnf-grammar implies 'guac perl') ... would not offend me at all.

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Meditations