Re: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by Anonymous Monk on Jul 12, 2015 at 13:43 UTC
... and apparently postderef is already non-experimental in blead, see 2ad792cd4e96.	[reply]
Re^3: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by stevieb (Canon) on Jul 12, 2015 at 13:51 UTC
Very helpful posts by both AnonyMonks, thanks. Does it go without saying that if it's been deemed non-experimental in blead that it's safe to use in prod code now, and ok to use in PerlMonks replies without applying the 'careful, experimental' blurb?	[reply]
Re^4: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by Anonymous Monk on Jul 12, 2015 at 14:06 UTC
I'd say it's not final until the 5.24 release is made in a little less than a year. And even if it becomes non-experimental then, code posted here with those features will always require the blurb "requires at least Perl v5.24" and/or a `use 5.024;` at the top of the code. Plenty of monks and visitors are still stuck with old Perls; circumfix deref will remain the most backwards-compatible way to do it.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by stevieb (Canon) on Jul 12, 2015 at 14:15 UTC
Re^5: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jul 13, 2015 at 17:08 UTC
Re^4: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jul 13, 2015 at 17:10 UTC
Answering for this particular case only, I'd say yes, it's safe. No problems were encountered, and there's no reason to expect that any will. It's an uncontroversial feature whose promotion out of experimental status was unanimous. It will only officially come out of experimental when 5.24 comes out next May-ish, but it's safe bet it will.	[reply]
Re^5: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by stevieb (Canon) on Jul 13, 2015 at 17:27 UTC