Re^3: Arithmetic bug within Time:Piece?

The documentation is indeed misleading ... and unfortunately again a case were "core module" means "old module".

By the way you mention this, it sounds like it's been well known. I've never put together ties between 'core' and `stale'. Are there other examples of this?

If so, my synopsis would be 'patch if one knows better'.

-stevieb

Comment on Re^3: Arithmetic bug within Time:Piece?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Arithmetic bug within Time:Piece? (core problem) by LanX (Saint) on Oct 03, 2015 at 09:25 UTC
Most core modules were introduced a long time ago ( antique coding standards) and have to comply to backwards compatibility (hindered further development). The debugger for instance is sometimes using the main:: namespace and is very hard to maintain. It would need a major rewrite, but this would most certainly break many products building on top of it. (actually such incompatibilities introduced by patches happen quite often) Or take Time::Seconds, changing the constants to objects would certainly break other code expecting plain scalars in edge cases. now just try to patch and start to argue with P5P... Keep in mind that many tests are missing since its old code.(sic) I could link to a talk were a IT guru explains why module authors shouldn't aspire to enter standard library status, b/c they loose all control to apply changes. Ironically its Guido van Rossum ... Update: see minute 49 Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Je suis Charlie!}	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Arithmetic bug within Time:Piece? (core problem)
by LanX (Saint) on Oct 03, 2015 at 09:25 UTC

The debugger for instance is sometimes using the main:: namespace and is very hard to maintain.

It would need a major rewrite, but this would most certainly break many products building on top of it.

(actually such incompatibilities introduced by patches happen quite often)

Or take Time::Seconds, changing the constants to objects would certainly break other code expecting plain scalars in edge cases.

now just try to patch and start to argue with P5P...

Keep in mind that many tests are missing since its old code.(sic)

I could link to a talk were a IT guru explains why module authors shouldn't aspire to enter standard library status, b/c they loose all control to apply changes.

Ironically its Guido van Rossum ...

Update: see

minute 49

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Je suis Charlie!}

[reply]