Skip Menu |

Subject: [EXPERIMENT] lexical subroutines
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:05:50 -0400
To: perlbug [...] perl.org
From: Ricardo Signes <rjbs [...] cpan.org>
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 340b
Lexical subroutines were added as an experimental feature in perl 5.18.0. Although they were discussed many times over the years, the actual ticket for their implementation was pretty recent: [perl #113930] We need to establish acceptance criteria for the feature, even if they are just "seem to work just fine for long enough." -- rjbs
Download signature.asc
application/pgp-signature 490b

Message body not shown because it is not plain text.

RT-Send-CC: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 717b
On Wed Oct 02 18:06:22 2013, rjbs wrote: Show quoted text
> Lexical subroutines were added as an experimental feature in perl > 5.18.0. > Although they were discussed many times over the years, the actual > ticket for > their implementation was pretty recent: [perl #113930] > > We need to establish acceptance criteria for the feature, even if they > are just > "seem to work just fine for long enough."
They ought to be deparsable, but that will be tricky. Getting BEGIN blocks to deparse in the right place is a related issue that will affect lexical subs as well. Without that the deparsed form is pretty useless. I have tried tackling that (BEGIN blocks) a couple of times, with no success so far. -- Father Chrysostomos
CC: bugs-bitbucket [...] rt.perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl #120085] [EXPERIMENT] lexical subroutines
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 00:02:10 -0300
To: Perl5 Porters Mailing List <perl5-porters [...] perl.org>
From: Brian Fraser <fraserbn [...] gmail.com>
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 915b
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Ricardo SIGNES <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:
Show quoted text
# New Ticket Created by  Ricardo SIGNES
# Please include the string:  [perl #120085]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# <URL: https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=120085 >


Lexical subroutines were added as an experimental feature in perl 5.18.0.
Although they were discussed many times over the years, the actual ticket for
their implementation was pretty recent: [perl #113930]

We need to establish acceptance criteria for the feature, even if they are just
"seem to work just fine for long enough."

Two things that don't work on lexical subs at the moment are 'prototype "lexsub"' and using them in conjunction with the callchecker. The former I'm not particularly worried about, but the latter should really be there before they are deemed stable.

RT-Send-CC: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 1.2k
On Thu Oct 03 20:02:49 2013, Hugmeir wrote: Show quoted text
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Ricardo SIGNES > <perlbug-followup@perl.org>wrote: >
> > # New Ticket Created by Ricardo SIGNES > > # Please include the string: [perl #120085] > > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > > # <URL: https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=120085 > > > > > > > Lexical subroutines were added as an experimental feature in perl
5.18.0. Show quoted text
> > Although they were discussed many times over the years, the actual
ticket Show quoted text
> > for > > their implementation was pretty recent: [perl #113930] > > > > We need to establish acceptance criteria for the feature, even if
they are Show quoted text
> > just > > "seem to work just fine for long enough." > >
> > Two things that don't work on lexical subs at the moment are 'prototype > "lexsub"'
That shouldn’t work, just as &{"lexsub"} doesn’t work. Show quoted text
> and using them in conjunction with the callchecker. The former > I'm not particularly worried about, but the latter should really be there > before they are deemed stable.
There are call checker problems in 5.18, but I believe they are solved in bleadperl, except for one C API infelicity, which is covered by a ticket linked to this one. -- Father Chrysostomos
Subject: Re: [perl #120085] [EXPERIMENT] lexical subroutines
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:28:58 +0100
To: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
From: Smylers <Smylers [...] stripey.com>
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 1018b
Father Chrysostomos via RT writes: Show quoted text
> On Wed Oct 02 18:06:22 2013, rjbs wrote: >
> > Lexical 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 "seem to work just fine for long enough."
> > They ought to be deparsable, but that will be tricky. Getting BEGIN > blocks to deparse in the right place is a related issue that will > affect lexical subs as well. Without that the deparsed form is pretty > useless. I have tried tackling that (BEGIN blocks) a couple of times, > with no success so far.
So should BEGIN blocks be marked experimental too, until they can usefully be deparsed? If not, why do lexical subs need to be deparsable in order to be non-experimental but BEGIN blocks don't? Smylers -- Stop drug companies hiding negative research results. Sign the AllTrials petition to get all clinical research results published. Read more: http://www.alltrials.net/blog/the-alltrials-campaign/
RT-Send-CC: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 1.1k
On Fri Oct 04 01:29:36 2013, smylers@stripey.com wrote: Show quoted text
> Father Chrysostomos via RT writes: >
> > On Wed Oct 02 18:06:22 2013, rjbs wrote: > >
> > > Lexical 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 "seem to work just fine for long enough."
> > > > They ought to be deparsable, but that will be tricky. Getting BEGIN > > blocks to deparse in the right place is a related issue that will > > affect lexical subs as well. Without that the deparsed form is pretty > > useless. I have tried tackling that (BEGIN blocks) a couple of times, > > with no success so far.
> > So should BEGIN blocks be marked experimental too, until they can > usefully be deparsed? > > If not, why do lexical subs need to be deparsable in order to be > non-experimental but BEGIN blocks don't?
Good point. :-) Currently the bodies of lexical subs don’t deparse at all and they all appear at the top of the block they were declared in. I’ve been hesitant to tackle just the bodies without getting the positioning right, too. I suppose I’m the real blocker. :-) -- Father Chrysostomos
RT-Send-CC: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 142b
What, if anything, is preventing this from leaving experimental status? (I've been using these more lately, and I am still happy.) -- rjbs
RT-Send-CC: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 396b
On Wed May 11 12:08:59 2016, rjbs wrote: Show quoted text
> What, if anything, is preventing this from leaving experimental status? > > (I've been using these more lately, and I am still happy.)
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
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:15:25 -0600
To: Ricardo SIGNES via RT <perlbug-followup [...] perl.org>
CC: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl #120085] [EXPERIMENT] lexical subroutines
From: Curtis Jewell <lists.perl.perl5-porters [...] csjewell.fastmail.us>
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 753b
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 13:08, Ricardo SIGNES via RT wrote: Show quoted text
> What, if anything, is preventing this from leaving experimental status? > > (I've been using these more lately, and I am still happy.)
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 related to these subs (which may already be solved), and setting a prototype at runtime. Which, if any, of these do we want to make official requirements to make this unexperimental? Or do we just say 'We've had enough time, Mikey likes it, so it's unexperimental now." Show quoted text
> --- > via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open > https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=120085
RT-Send-CC: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 1.1k
On Thu May 12 07:48:09 2016, lists.perl.perl5-porters@csjewell.fastmail.us wrote: Show quoted text
> On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 13:08, Ricardo SIGNES via RT wrote:
> > What, if anything, is preventing this from leaving experimental status? > > > > (I've been using these more lately, and I am still happy.)
> > Maybe I can throw some questions out from this issue. > > "Do they deparse?" is the main question I'm seeing.
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. Show quoted text
> Others questions I see are that there are problems with the callchecker > related to these subs (which may already be solved), and setting
Reading, not setting. Show quoted text
> a > prototype at runtime.
Those are solved. The prototype-reading problem was a misunderstanding. Show quoted text
> Which, if any, of these do we want to make official requirements to make > this unexperimental? Or do we just say 'We've had enough time, Mikey > likes it, so it's unexperimental now."
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
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 22:31:32 +0200
To: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl #120085] [EXPERIMENT] lexical subroutines
From: Sawyer X <xsawyerx [...] gmail.com>
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 1.2k
I don't see a reason to keep this experimental. On 05/12/2016 10:03 PM, Father Chrysostomos via RT wrote: Show quoted text
> On Thu May 12 07:48:09 2016, lists.perl.perl5-porters@csjewell.fastmail.us wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 13:08, Ricardo SIGNES via RT wrote:
>>> What, if anything, is preventing this from leaving experimental status? >>> >>> (I've been using these more lately, and I am still happy.)
>> Maybe I can throw some questions out from this issue. >> >> "Do they deparse?" is the main question I'm seeing.
> 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. >
>> Others questions I see are that there are problems with the callchecker >> related to these subs (which may already be solved), and setting
> Reading, not setting. >
>> a >> prototype at runtime.
> Those are solved. The prototype-reading problem was a misunderstanding. >
>> Which, if any, of these do we want to make official requirements to make >> this unexperimental? Or do we just say 'We've had enough time, Mikey >> likes it, so it's unexperimental now."
> 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. >
RT-Send-CC: perl5-porters [...] perl.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 187b
On Wed May 18 13:32:06 2016, xsawyerx@gmail.com wrote: Show quoted text
> I don't see a reason to keep this experimental.
a50cb9d2d merges a branch that stops it from being so. -- Father Chrysostomos


This service is sponsored and maintained by Best Practical Solutions and runs on Perl.org infrastructure.

For issues related to this RT instance (aka "perlbug"), please contact perlbug-admin at perl.org