Re^3: Is auto-dereferencing worth forcing upgrades to newer versions of Perl?

And it works right now.

Not in core, it doesn't. (Though I wish it did.)

But anyway, you're missing (or intentionally misdirecting) the point that the justification is not technical, but aesthetic.

And what do you care? If you don't like a given feature (and there's no global performance cost involved in implementing it in the first place), just don't use it.

Some people like new features and some don't. Some like evolution and some like stability. Fine.

My point was that these are individual decisions to be made by individual developers. Expecting "everyone" or "no one" to use a given feature is unrealistic. There's an adoption curve. It happens. No big deal.

-xdg

_{Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.}

Comment on Re^3: Is auto-dereferencing worth forcing upgrades to newer versions of Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Is auto-dereferencing worth forcing upgrades to newer versions of Perl? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 20, 2013 at 00:49 UTC
Not in core, it doesn't. (Though I wish it did.) Wish granted. Really, it does: `#! perl -slw use strict; package Thing; sub new { bless [], $_[0] }; sub push { push @{ shift() }, @_ } package main; use Data::Dump qw[ pp ]; my %x = ( foo => [ map Thing->new, 1 .. 10 ] ); $x{foo}[0]->push( 1,2,3 ); pp \%x; __END__ C:\test>junk66 { foo => [ bless([1, 2, 3], "Thing"), bless([], "Thing"), bless([], "Thing"), bless([], "Thing"), bless([], "Thing"), bless([], "Thing"), bless([], "Thing"), bless([], "Thing"), bless([], "Thing"), bless([], "Thing"), ], }` [download] That's 5.10, but it's worked right back to 5.6.1 (and probably before, but that's before my time with Perl.) (And if aesthetics is the current, important criteria for the future of Perl5, there are plenty of other areas that definitely rate attention long before this.) With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Is auto-dereferencing worth forcing upgrades to newer versions of Perl? by xdg (Monsignor) on Aug 20, 2013 at 19:54 UTC
It doesn't work on unblessed references, which is what the auto-deref feature does work on. (I thought you were referring to autobox.) -xdg _{Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.}	[reply]
Re^6: Is auto-dereferencing worth forcing upgrades to newer versions of Perl? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 20, 2013 at 20:05 UTC
(I thought you were referring to autobox.) No. I wouldn't touch autobox with yours let alone my own :) With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]


Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
	PerlMonks