You are now just being rude for no reason.

It really doesn't matter whether it was pseudocode, if it's exactly equivalent, or even if perl translated <> directly to that code before generating the final AST. It still doesn't mean that documentation written reflecting the use of two-arg open when there was no three-arg open means that the magic <> had to remain using the magical two-arg open. It just doesn't follow.

The reason it continued to use the magical two-arg open was a policy decision that those using it that way shouldn't have to change their programs. It's about backwards compatibility being important to people on p5p and has nothing to do with documentation that simply could have been updated. tye's argument is that saner and more secure behavior in this instance outweighs backwards compatibility of a little-used feature.

Those who have valid arguments to the contrary favor the backwards compatibility. That's it. It has nothing to do with a new Perl programmer needing to go back through every version of documentation written over the past 20 years. It has to do with backwards compatibility of the code written using the feature.

Perl 5.10.0's docs are to document Perl 5.10.0 and not to document Perl 1. There are also these documents called deltas. They explain what is different from one version to the next, and they really exist. If the policy decision about whether to make <> work with three-arg open once it was available fell the other way, the new version's docs and and delta (for example, perl51000delta or if it changed between now and then perl5120delta) could reflect how it is in the new version and how that differes from old versions, respectively.

You have wasted your block-quoted, all-capital, all-bold, fake cursing rant accusing people of misunderstanding simply because they find fault with your argument all for naught, because I still don't care if the behavior is changed or not.

Now sod off and let the adults discuss this, you insolent little bitch. There. I can be rude, too. It doesn't make my point any stronger, and your rudeness does nothing for yours, either.

In reply to Re^10: magic-diamond <> behavior -- WHAT?! (dock) by mr_mischief
in thread magic-diamond <> behavior -- WHAT?! by repellent

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.