On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>... We have 390+ modules, and hand-waving away all
> trouble of maintaining them seems a bit lofty.
> ... a large percentage of the module updates are done by group of
> maybe five to a dozen volunteers. ... 5 people updating 70% of 390
> modules. Modules
On 2015-10-15 5:27 AM, yary wrote:
Short answer: everything must declare which semantics it expects-
everything in Panda/CPAN at least. And we already knew it, just need
to do it.
I believe this is something Perl 6 should require in general, if it doesn't.
That is, it should be MANDATORY for P
Moritz rant away! Actually, I think this it is a very significant
milestone in the development of a language and its ecosystem when
backwards compatibility becomes an issue.
There will always be modules that have bit rot, insufficient
documentation, inadequate testing, no reviews, etc. The pro
Short answer: everything must declare which semantics it expects-
everything in Panda/CPAN at least. And we already knew it, just need
to do it.
Full post: This thread points to a bigger problem, which has a
solution that is both cultural and technical.
Perl5 has a colossal code corpus, humbling
On 10/15/2015 10:47 AM, Smylers wrote:
Moritz Lenz writes:
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out.
On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
We have 390+ modules, and hand-waving away all trouble of
maintaining them s
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 12:57, Mark Overmeer wrote:
>
> * Elizabeth Mattijsen (l...@dijkmat.nl) [151015 10:43]:
>> FWIW, I’m with FROGGS on this.
>> use variables :D;
>
> In the first response to this message, Moritz spoke about
> use invocant :D;
> and use parameters :D;
>
> Three different
* Elizabeth Mattijsen (l...@dijkmat.nl) [151015 10:43]:
> FWIW, I’m with FROGGS on this.
> use variables :D;
In the first response to this message, Moritz spoke about
use invocant :D;
and use parameters :D;
Three different things?
> at the top of the scope of your code, and then you’re s
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 11:06, Tobias Leich wrote:
> Am 15.10.2015 um 10:47 schrieb Smylers:
>> Moritz Lenz writes:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
>>>
Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out.
On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>>
Am 15.10.2015 um 10:47 schrieb Smylers:
> Moritz Lenz writes:
>
>> On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
>>
>>> Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out.
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
We have 390+ modules, and hand-waving away all trouble of
Moritz Lenz writes:
> On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
>
> > Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out.
> >
> > On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> > >
> > > We have 390+ modules, and hand-waving away all trouble of
> > > maintaining them seems a bit lo
On 2015-10-14 6:14 AM, Parrot Raiser wrote:
Is this particular change one that could be implemented
algorithmically, or at least partially so?
(E.g. For all modules
check for the presence of a ":D".
If it's there, no action.
If not, insert a line of code. Run a test.
If su
Is this particular change one that could be implemented
algorithmically, or at least partially so?
(E.g. For all modules
check for the presence of a ":D".
If it's there, no action.
If not, insert a line of code. Run a test.
If successful, post change.
If not, alert a human)
I have a proposal.
Unlike with say the GLR, perhaps this whole :D thing may be a good test case for
the Perl 6 feature of explicit language versioning.
How about we don't make the :D change now, and give more thought as to whether
we actually want to do it at all.
If we do decide it is wort
* Moritz Lenz (mor...@faui2k3.org) [151014 09:54]:
> In Practice, there's a small number of people who try to update modules to
> match when the compiler changed. Most module authors don't hang out in
> #perl6, eager to update their modules to the lastest rakudo change.
With the relatively small n
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out.
On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
But hopefully none of them breaking backwards compatibility on such a
large scale. The last few backwards incompatible changes still cause
p
I had a related thought. We want Perl 6 to be the best it can be out of the
gate when it is declared production ready at Christmas or whatever. If it is
better for the default to be that parameters must be defined where not
explicitly declared otherwise, then that is what Perl 6 should specify
Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out.
On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
But hopefully none of them breaking backwards compatibility on such a
large scale. The last few backwards incompatible changes still cause
pain in the ecosystem. We have 390+ modules, and h
17 matches
Mail list logo
