That is so easy for a programmer to implement; I have an "nyi"
subroutine/function in the my skeleton scripts for both Perl 5 and
Bash. Is it worth cluttering the language?
As already mentioned, we have three such stubbers already. You can even put
a partial/incomplete implementation after them: just terminate the ... or
w/e with a semicolon.
What none of them will do for you is allow a syntactically incorrect body.
But the proposed feature *also* will not allow
That is so easy for a programmer to implement; I have an "nyi"
subroutine/function in the my skeleton scripts for both Perl 5 and
Bash. Is it worth cluttering the language?
But we already have ..., !!! and ???. Isn't it what you want?
m: sub foo() { … }; foo
rakudo-moar 608e88: OUTPUT: «Stub code executed in sub foo at
line 1 in block at line 1Actually thrown at: in block
at line 1»
m: sub foo() { !!! }; foo
rakudo-moar 608e88: OUTPUT: «Stub code
On Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:29 -0700, ben-goldb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> There should be a trait, called either nyi or unimplemented (choose your
> favorite name and capitalization) which changes the subroutine or method
> it's applied to so that, when it's called, it dies or fails with an X::NYI
On Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:29 -0700, ben-goldb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> There should be a trait, called either nyi or unimplemented (choose your
> favorite name and capitalization) which changes the subroutine or method
> it's applied to so that, when it's called, it dies or fails with an X::NYI
# New Ticket Created by Benjamin Goldberg
# Please include the string: [perl #131398]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131398 >
There should be a trait, called either nyi or unimplemented (choose your
favorite
