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
[EXPERIMENT] lexical subroutines #13326
Comments
From @rjbsLexical subroutines were added as an experimental feature in perl 5.18.0. We need to establish acceptance criteria for the feature, even if they are just -- |
From @cpansproutOn Wed Oct 02 18:06:22 2013, rjbs wrote:
They ought to be deparsable, but that will be tricky. Getting BEGIN -- Father Chrysostomos |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @HugmeirOn Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
Two things that don't work on lexical subs at the moment are 'prototype |
From @cpansproutOn Thu Oct 03 20:02:49 2013, Hugmeir wrote:
That shouldn’t work, just as &{"lexsub"} doesn’t work.
There are call checker problems in 5.18, but I believe they are solved -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @SmylersFather Chrysostomos via RT writes:
So should BEGIN blocks be marked experimental too, until they can If not, why do lexical subs need to be deparsable in order to be Smylers |
From @cpansproutOn Fri Oct 04 01:29:36 2013, smylers@stripey.com wrote:
Good point. :-) Currently the bodies of lexical subs don’t deparse at all and they all -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @rjbsWhat, if anything, is preventing this from leaving experimental status? (I've been using these more lately, and I am still happy.) -- |
From @cpansproutOn Wed May 11 12:08:59 2016, rjbs wrote:
Ticket #123367. Yes, it’s obscure, but if we change it (and I think it should change) it might have unintended side effects. So nonexperimentalness should wait at least a little longer. -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @csjewellOn Wed, May 11, 2016, at 13:08, Ricardo SIGNES via RT wrote:
Maybe I can throw some questions out from this issue. "Do they deparse?" is the main question I'm seeing. Others questions I see are that there are problems with the callchecker Which, if any, of these do we want to make official requirements to make
|
From @cpansproutOn Thu May 12 07:48:09 2016, lists.perl.perl5-porters@csjewell.fastmail.us wrote:
They do deparse, as of 5.22, except for the bizarre edge cases in lexsub.t. I don’t think the remaining cases need to block it.
Reading, not setting.
Those are solved. The prototype-reading problem was a misunderstanding.
Ticket #123367, as I said before. Other than that, I think the implementation is stable enough. A year ago I would certainly not have thought so. -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @xsawyerxI don't see a reason to keep this experimental. On 05/12/2016 10:03 PM, Father Chrysostomos via RT wrote:
|
From @cpansproutOn Wed May 18 13:32:06 2016, xsawyerx@gmail.com wrote:
a50cb9d merges a branch that stops it from being so. -- Father Chrysostomos |
From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]On Wed May 18 13:32:06 2016, xsawyerx@gmail.com wrote:
a50cb9d merges a branch that stops it from being so. -- Father Chrysostomos |
@cpansprout - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#120085 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT120085$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: