Frank Wiles wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:55:32 -0800 > "Philippe M. Chiasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Reviving a somewhat old thread here, so for context, here it is, >>archived: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/86483 >> >>Basically, I think documenting this as a feature was not such a good >>idea. Who can expect that this is correct/expected behaviour >> >>my $foo = 123; >>$r->pnotes('foo' => $foo); >>$foo = 456; >>$r->pnotes('foo') # <== now 456 >> >>I understand _why_ this hapenning, but I think that if it's not a >>bug, it's certainly a very strange behaviour, compared to, say $note >>{foo} = $foo; I would think that the casual user would be bitten by >>something like this, even though it's documented. >> >>Is there any good reason _not_ to make this pnotes code behave just >>like a hash, and store a copy of the scalar ? > > > I didn't know about that "feature", so I would have be completely > lost if I had run into personally. I agree it should be changed and > behave as you would expect it to. > > The only downside I can think of is that it will break anyone who > is taking advantage of it.
yeah, and that's the problem. I'm fine with fixing things in 2.0 if that's the majority consensus. I'd have a really hard time doing anything that changes 1.0 behavior at this point, though. the bugfix that was just committed is a good example of things I think we ought to be doing in 1.0 - something was clearly broken, caused things to blow up, so we fix it. but to alter some functinal nuance simply because it doesn't feel right seems far beyond what we can do to our 1.0, production userbase. --Geoff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
