As for soft-semicolon you completly misunderstood the situation:
First, nobody force you to use this pragma. And if you do not use it you are not affected. I am thinking now that it should be enabled only with option -d.
It does not make sense to conduct something like "performance review" in a large corporation for my proposals concentrating on "soft-semicolon" idea and ignoring all others. As if it is the only one worth any discussion. It might be the easiest one to piss off, but it is far from being the most important or far reaching among those proposals.
There is no free lunch, and for some coding styles (including but not limited to coding styles used in many modules in Perl standard library) it is definitely inappropriate. Nobody claim that it is suitable for all users. It is an optional facility for those who want and need it. In a way, it is a debugging aid that allows to cut the number of debugging runs. And IMHO there is not a zero subset of Perl users who would be interested in this capability. Especially system administrators who systematically use bash along with Perl. And many of them do not use sophisticated editors, often this is just vi or Midnight Commander editor.
Detractors can happily stay with the old formatting styles forever. Why is this so difficult to understand before producing such an example?
Moreover, how can you reconcile the amount of efforts (and resulting bugs) for the elimination of extra round brackets in Perl with this proposal? Is not this the same idea -- to lessen the possible number of user errors?
For me, it looks like a pure hypocrisy - in one case we are spending some efforts following other scripting languages at some cost; but the other, similar in its essence, proposal is rejected blindly as just a bad fashion. If this is a fashion, then eliminating round brackets is also a bad fashion, IMHO.
And why only I see some improvements possible at low cost in the current Perl implementation and nobody else proposed anything similar or better, or attempted to modify/enhance my proposals? After all Perl 5.10 was a definite step forward for Perl. Perl 7 should be the same.
I think the effort spend here in criticizing my proposal would be adequate to introduce the additional parameter into index function ("to" limit). Which is needed and absence of which dictates using substr to limit the search zone in long strings. Which is sub-optimal solution unless the interpreter has advanced optimization capabilities and can recognize such a use as the attempt to impose the limit on the search.
Or both this and an option in tr that allows it to stop after the first character not is set1 and return this position.:-)
Constructive discussion does not mean pissing off each and every my posts ( one has -17 votes now; looks a little bit like schoolyard bulling ) -- you need to try to find rational grain in them, and if such exists, try to revise and enhance the proposal.
The stance "I am happy with Perl 'as is' and go to hell with your suggestions" has its value and attraction, but it is unclear how it will affect the future of the language.
In reply to Re^8: What esteemed monks think about changes necessary/desirable in Perl 7 outside of OO staff
by likbez
in thread What esteemed monks think about changes necessary/desirable in Perl 7 outside of OO staff
by likbez
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |