From @khwilliamson

This is a bug report for perl from public@​khwilliamson.com,
generated with the help of perlbug 1.39 running under perl 5.13.11.

The /aia is not legal. If you want to have two a's, they must be
adjacent. Subscribers to p5p are finding the new message about this
confusing, so people who are less expert than they would find it
doubly so; it would be a good idea to re-word it before 5.14 ships.

Flags​:
  category=core
  severity=low

This perlbug was built using Perl 5.13.11 - Wed Mar 23 08​:11​:47 MDT 2011
It is being executed now by Perl 5.13.11 - Mon Mar 21 12​:10​:21 MDT 2011.

Site configuration information for perl 5.13.11​:

Configured by khw at Mon Mar 21 12​:10​:21 MDT 2011.

Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 13 subversion 11) configuration​:
  Commit id​: 0f200d9
  Platform​:
  osname=linux, osvers=2.6.35-28-generic-pae,
archname=i686-linux-thread-multi-64int-ld
  uname='linux karl 2.6.35-28-generic-pae #49-ubuntu smp tue mar 1
14​:58​:06 utc 2011 i686 gnulinux '
  config_args='-des -Dprefix=/home/khw/blead -Dusedevel
-D'optimize=-ggdb3' -A'optimize=-ggdb3' -A'optimize=-O0' -Dman1dir=none
-Dman3dir=none -DDEBUGGING -Dusemorebits -Dusethreads'
  hint=recommended, useposix=true, d_sigaction=define
  useithreads=define, usemultiplicity=define
  useperlio=define, d_sfio=undef, uselargefiles=define, usesocks=undef
  use64bitint=define, use64bitall=undef, uselongdouble=define
  usemymalloc=n, bincompat5005=undef
  Compiler​:
  cc='cc', ccflags ='-D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -DDEBUGGING
-fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -fstack-protector -I/usr/local/include
-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64',
  optimize='-O0 -ggdb3',
  cppflags='-D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -DDEBUGGING
-fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -fstack-protector -I/usr/local/include'
  ccversion='', gccversion='4.4.5', gccosandvers=''
  intsize=4, longsize=4, ptrsize=4, doublesize=8, byteorder=12345678
  d_longlong=define, longlongsize=8, d_longdbl=define, longdblsize=12
  ivtype='long long', ivsize=8, nvtype='long double', nvsize=12,
Off_t='off_t', lseeksize=8
  alignbytes=4, prototype=define
  Linker and Libraries​:
  ld='cc', ldflags =' -fstack-protector -L/usr/local/lib'
  libpth=/usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib
  libs=-lnsl -ldl -lm -lcrypt -lutil -lpthread -lc
  perllibs=-lnsl -ldl -lm -lcrypt -lutil -lpthread -lc
  libc=/lib/libc-2.12.1.so, so=so, useshrplib=false, libperl=libperl.a
  gnulibc_version='2.12.1'
  Dynamic Linking​:
  dlsrc=dl_dlopen.xs, dlext=so, d_dlsymun=undef, ccdlflags='-Wl,-E'
  cccdlflags='-fPIC', lddlflags='-shared -ggdb3 -ggdb3 -O0
-L/usr/local/lib -fstack-protector'

Locally applied patches​:

@​INC for perl 5.13.11​:

/home/khw/blead/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.13.11/i686-linux-thread-multi-64int-ld
  /home/khw/blead/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.13.11
  /home/khw/blead/lib/perl5/5.13.11/i686-linux-thread-multi-64int-ld
  /home/khw/blead/lib/perl5/5.13.11
  /home/khw/blead/lib/perl5/site_perl
  .

Environment for perl 5.13.11​:
  HOME=/home/khw
  LANG=en_US.UTF-8
  LANGUAGE=en_US​:en
  LD_LIBRARY_PATH (unset)
  LOGDIR (unset)

PATH=/home/khw/bin​:/home/khw/print/bin​:/bin​:/usr/local/sbin​:/usr/local/bin​:/usr/sbin​:/usr/bin​:/sbin​:/usr/games​:/home/khw/cxoffice/bin
  PERL5OPT=-w
  PERL_BADLANG (unset)
  SHELL=/bin/ksh

From @tamias

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 02​:48​:35PM -0700, karl williamson wrote​:

The /aia is not legal. If you want to have two a's, they must be
adjacent. Subscribers to p5p are finding the new message about this
confusing, so people who are less expert than they would find it
doubly so; it would be a good idea to re-word it before 5.14 ships.

How about something along the lines of​:

"Multiple occurences of /a must be adjacent."
or
"Multiple occurences of /a must be consecutive".

(Is /aaa legal, or are you limited to two a's?)

Ronald

The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

From @khwilliamson

On 03/24/2011 03​:52 PM, Ronald J Kimball wrote​:

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 02​:48​:35PM -0700, karl williamson wrote​:

The /aia is not legal. If you want to have two a's, they must be
adjacent. Subscribers to p5p are finding the new message about this
confusing, so people who are less expert than they would find it
doubly so; it would be a good idea to re-word it before 5.14 ships.

How about something along the lines of​:

"Multiple occurences of /a must be adjacent."
or
"Multiple occurences of /a must be consecutive".

(Is /aaa legal, or are you limited to two a's?)

Ronald

Max is 2.

penning@uu.nl - Status changed from 'open' to 'new'

From @khwilliamson

On 03/24/2011 07​:16 PM, Karl Williamson wrote​:

On 03/24/2011 03​:52 PM, Ronald J Kimball wrote​:

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 02​:48​:35PM -0700, karl williamson wrote​:

The /aia is not legal. If you want to have two a's, they must be
adjacent. Subscribers to p5p are finding the new message about this
confusing, so people who are less expert than they would find it
doubly so; it would be a good idea to re-word it before 5.14 ships.

How about something along the lines of​:

"Multiple occurences of /a must be adjacent."
or
"Multiple occurences of /a must be consecutive".

(Is /aaa legal, or are you limited to two a's?)

Ronald

Max is 2.

Jesse is allowing a change to go into 5.14. How about

"2 max occurrences of /a allowed and must be adjacent" ?

From @tamias

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09​:54​:04AM -0600, Karl Williamson wrote​:

Jesse is allowing a change to go into 5.14. How about

"2 max occurrences of /a allowed and must be adjacent" ?

Will /aaa and /aia share an error message, or have separate error messages?

I'll offer this variation, which I think is more gramatically correct​:

"A maximum of two occurences of /a is allowed, and they must be adjacent"

Ronald

The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

From tchrist@perl.com

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09​:54​:04AM -0600, Karl Williamson wrote​:

Jesse is allowing a change to go into 5.14. How about

"2 max occurrences of /a allowed and must be adjacent" ?

Will /aaa and /aia share an error message, or have separate error messages?

I'll offer this variation, which I think is more gramatically correct​:

"A maximum of two occurences of /a is allowed, and they must be adjacent"

rr

From @khwilliamson

On 03/26/2011 12​:59 PM, Ronald J Kimball wrote​:

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09​:54​:04AM -0600, Karl Williamson wrote​:

Jesse is allowing a change to go into 5.14. How about

"2 max occurrences of /a allowed and must be adjacent" ?

Will /aaa and /aia share an error message, or have separate error messages?

I'll offer this variation, which I think is more gramatically correct​:

"A maximum of two occurences of /a is allowed, and they must be adjacent"

Ronald

Combining with an off-line suggestion from Eric​:
At most two occurrences of /a are allowed, and they must be adjacent

From @ap

* karl williamson <perlbug-followup@​perl.org> [2011-03-24 22​:50]​:

The /aia is not legal.

I wonder why not. After all, /eie is.

From @khwilliamson

On 03/27/2011 12​:05 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote​:

* karl williamson<perlbug-followup@​perl.org> [2011-03-24 22​:50]​:

The /aia is not legal.

I wonder why not. After all, /eie is.

It's because of my belief that there will be less total time spent on
writing and debugging programs that use this if the a's have to be
adjacent. I am willing to change for the sake of consistency with
pre-existing behaviors, but that would require Jesse's approval.

From @obra

On Sun 27.Mar'11 at 12​:37​:37 -0600, Karl Williamson wrote​:

On 03/27/2011 12​:05 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote​:

* karl williamson<perlbug-followup@​perl.org> [2011-03-24 22​:50]​:

The /aia is not legal.

I wonder why not. After all, /eie is.

It's because of my belief that there will be less total time spent
on writing and debugging programs that use this if the a's have to
be adjacent. I am willing to change for the sake of consistency
with pre-existing behaviors, but that would require Jesse's
approval.

I'd rather our suffix modifiers work the same way. The overall cognitive
load on our users will probably end up lower.

So yes, please change this for 5.14. Thank you!

From @Abigail

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11​:36​:24AM +0800, Jesse Vincent wrote​:

On Sun 27.Mar'11 at 12​:37​:37 -0600, Karl Williamson wrote​:

On 03/27/2011 12​:05 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote​:

* karl williamson<perlbug-followup@​perl.org> [2011-03-24 22​:50]​:

The /aia is not legal.

I wonder why not. After all, /eie is.

It's because of my belief that there will be less total time spent
on writing and debugging programs that use this if the a's have to
be adjacent. I am willing to change for the sake of consistency
with pre-existing behaviors, but that would require Jesse's
approval.

I'd rather our suffix modifiers work the same way. The overall cognitive
load on our users will probably end up lower.

So, does that mean that /aia is the same as /ai (making the /a suffix
work in the same way as /s), or the same as /aai (making the /a suffix
work in the same way as /e)?

I think I prefer the former, as I tend to see the 'aa' modifier as a
single token, and not twice the 'a' modifier (which is the case for /ee).

Abigail

From ebhanssen@cpan.org

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9​:35 AM, Abigail <abigail@​abigail.be> wrote​:

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11​:36​:24AM +0800, Jesse Vincent wrote​:

I'd rather our suffix modifiers work the same way. The overall cognitive
load on our users will probably end up lower.

So, does that mean that /aia is the same as /ai (making the /a suffix
work in the same way as /s), or the same as /aai (making the /a suffix
work in the same way as /e)?

I think I prefer the former, as I tend to see the 'aa' modifier as a
single token, and not twice the 'a' modifier (which is the case for /ee).

  As for working the same way, /eie and /eei are the same, and so are /sis
and /ssi – and I'm sure to some (many? most?) /aia and /aai would be
expected to be as well.

  Please don't make /aia and /aai _silently_ different.

Eirik

From @khwilliamson

On 03/28/2011 01​:54 AM, Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote​:

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9​:35 AM, Abigail <abigail@​abigail.be
<mailto​:abigail@​abigail.be>> wrote​:

On Mon\, Mar 28\, 2011 at 11​:36​:24AM \+0800\, Jesse Vincent wrote​:
 >
 > I'd rather our suffix modifiers work the same way\. The overall
cognitive
 > load on our users will probably end up lower\.

So\, does that mean that /aia is the same as /ai \(making the /a suffix
work in the same way as /s\)\, or the same as /aai \(making the /a suffix
work in the same way as /e\)?

I think I prefer the former\, as I tend to see the 'aa' modifier as a
single token\, and not twice the 'a' modifier \(which is the case for
/ee\)\.

As for working the same way, /eie and /eei are the same, and so are
/sis and /ssi – and I'm sure to some (many? most?) /aia and /aai would
be expected to be as well.

Please don't make /aia and /aai _silently_ different.

Eirik

I wanted to make aa a single token for user's cognitive perception, but
I think it has to be like ee because of precedent.

So here is what I propose to do, to see if there is dissent​:

The 'a' may be repeated, not necessarily adjacent, and if so, does mean
what /aa means now, which can be thought of as 'more than a single "a"'.

The /dul modifiers will continue to be restricted to at most one total;
and the /a cannot occur 3 times or in combination with the others. This
is contrary to the precedent of, say, having multiple 'm's mean the same
as a single one, but these modifiers are special, in that only the
/dual modifiers turn off other modifiers. By not allowing two
occurrences of /d etc, or three of /a, we don't back ourselves into a
corner if (shudder at the thought) it becomes advisable to have those
mean something different in a later release.

From @ap

* Karl Williamson <public@​khwilliamson.com> [2011-03-29 17​:50]​:

So here is what I propose to do, to see if there is dissent​:

The 'a' may be repeated, not necessarily adjacent, and if so,
does mean what /aa means now, which can be thought of as 'more
than a single "a"'.

The /dul modifiers will continue to be restricted to at most
one total; and the /a cannot occur 3 times or in combination
with the others. This is contrary to the precedent of, say,
having multiple 'm's mean the same as a single one, but these
modifiers are special, in that only the /dual modifiers turn
off other modifiers. By not allowing two occurrences of /d
etc, or three of /a, we don't back ourselves into a corner if
(shudder at the thought) it becomes advisable to have those
mean something different in a later release.

That looks sane to me.

Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http​://plasmasturm.org/>

From @khwilliamson

This is now resolved to what was finally agreed on by
342c852
f6a766d
ff3f26d
--Karl Williamson

From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]

This is now resolved to what was finally agreed on by
342c852
f6a766d
ff3f26d
--Karl Williamson

@khwilliamson - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'