chromatic wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2006 12:32, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Before we start talking about how such a thing might be implemented,
I'd like to see a solid argument in favor of implementing it at all.
What benefit can be derived by letting a module specify additional
strictures for its users? Ditto for a role placing restrictions on
the classes that do it.
Benefit #1: incompetent programmers who really really need to write
mission-critical code (the ones that the Java designers apparently had in
mind) now have only a million ways to write terrible code.
First of all, sorry for replying to the earliest message in this thread
last night with what was obviously a redundant message. I was skimming
mail last night.
Second, I think everyone needs to grab some fresh air and relax. Perl
will be Perl when we're done. Everyone's agreed on that, and it's not
going to change.
The proposal that I made, and others that have been making are attempts
to allow certain types of programming paradigms. This is a good thing,
and plays well into the inclusiveness of Perl.
Would there be such tools used in the core libraries? Maybe, maybe not,
we could discuss that. If they were implemented in the core libraries
would there be a universal "no bondage" flag that shut them off?
Probably, since that's something that Perl tends to like doing.
Now, Larry has asked that we focus on getting 6.0 out the door, and let
details like this set until there's some clarity of implementation. I
think that's a great idea, mostly because there are bigger fish to fry
right now.
