Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should 'use p5isms' be renamed / removed / documented & tested #1887

Closed
lizmat opened this issue May 30, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@lizmat
Copy link
Contributor

commented May 30, 2018

A little while ago I added a use p5isms pragma, that will allow you to use Perl 5 like constructs without getting warnings / errors about it. Which is handy for a number of CPAN Butterfly Plan modules.

So far, I have not added documentation or tests, because there was some discussion as to the usefulness, and to the naming. Hence my question.

I will add three comments to this Issue that can be used by whoever to add thumbs up / thumbs down so we can have a little poll.

In about a week from now, I will look at it again and go forward with the poll results.

@lizmat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 30, 2018

It should be documented / tested

@lizmat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 30, 2018

It should be renamed to something else

@lizmat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 30, 2018

It should be removed

@zoffixznet

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 30, 2018

The poll is confusing. Of course it should be documented and tested.... but after being renamed 😛

Personally, I see no reason to encode the name of a specific language in a pragma. It might be making sense right now, but what about 10 years from now, when there's Pumpkin 11 instead of "p5" and dozens of other similar errors for Go, Node, Ruby, and Python?

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 31, 2018

Could it be use isms<perl5> or something like that? Or what are the options for renaming?

lizmat added a commit that referenced this issue May 31, 2018

Rename 'use p5isms' to more general 'use isms <perl5>
- as proposed in GH #1887
- should allow for other isms to be added later
- internally still called 'p5isms' to allow for easier checking
  - this may need some attention if other alternatives are added in
    the future.  But at least that will be work to do if we need
    rather than work now when we don't.
@lizmat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 31, 2018

Implemented as use isms <perl5> in 4109ce3

@lizmat lizmat self-assigned this Jun 2, 2018

@lizmat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 8, 2018

Change it to use isms <Perl5> to match use Foo:from<Perl5>, documented it, added tests for it

@lizmat lizmat closed this Jun 8, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.