The solution is to provide a better alternativeProviding a better alternative doesn't imply making the old behaviour illegal - specially not if it's documented and people rely on it. And note that my ... if ...; only worked as an artifact of the implementation - and then only under certain conditions.
Is that even the case, or did they reject a fix?AFAIK, noone on p5p is considering this issue a huge problem (as far as I can see, it's not even in perltodo), and noone ever proposed to change/fix it - I cannot recall it being rejected. Which means that if you* think it's important enough to fix, you should do the work. Either by writing a patch (it's probably to late to get it into 5.10.1), or at least by lobbying your case on p5p, and finding someone else to do the work for you.
Bitching about it on perlmonks is an inefficient way to change perl.
*That's a generic you.
In reply to Re^3: Why do poisoned null attacks still work ?
by JavaFan
in thread Why do poisoned null attacks still work ?
by pubnoop
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |