Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 01:56:22PM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
>
>> Anyone who knows me over any range of situations knows that I most often
>> --
>> even unconsciously, mirror the communication of those communicating to me.
>> Those who are respectful and nice, I am compelled to be such to them.
>>
> I just gave you an honest and forthright estimation of the problem, and an
> explanation of why it doesn't belong on modules@perl.org.
>
The discussion of module names doesn't belong on modules@perl.org?
Or are you saying your initial personal attack on me was not appropriate
to post to the
list. I have responded to your technical issues.
By any definition it is a pragma. It's purpose is to affect the
top-level 'use' and 'package'
statements and belongs at the same level as those statements.
The problem was that the language behavior was tilted a certain way. I
wrote a pragma
to make it optional, now you want to sweep it into some corner. It's
changing a
fundamental behavior of the perl, how is that not a pragma?
It changes compile and run time behavior? It has no other function than
to override
the inability of the use statement to use packages defined in the same file.
Calling it some arcane name isn't putting it on the same footing as the
problems it is
solving. I DID GO OFF AND WRITE A CPAN MODULE to SOLVE the PROBLEM as
people said to do, now you want to make sure it's not used as well.
It's a language feature and as such is a pragma. But the reality seems
to be that you don't
want any changes in your language, so any changes have to be buried.
I do note that you continued on with the personal issues and ignored the
technical.
So how am I portrayed as the bad person when I respond to both, but the
snipers get away
with just responding to personal attacks, on list, saying don't do what
I'm doing on list -- AND
adding insult to injury, you ignore the technical responses I make.
