Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> On 26/02/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Please reconsider autobox.
>>
>> I second this request.
>
> autobox in on CPAN and works. Moreover, the intent of the work on
> lexical pragmas was to enable people to write their own pragmas and
> put them on CPAN. (*) So just use it.
Normally I would agree, I'm firmly in the "the only modules which should
ship with the core are those which help installing more modules" camp. But
this seems a bit of fundamental language stuff that happens to be available
as a module.
> Or, maybe you were asking to make autobox the default ? No. That's not
> going to happen anytime soon. The implications for backwards
> compatibility are too huge.
Well, yes I was. :) The last time it was discussed I don't recall much
consideration given to backwards compatibility. Mostly it was that folks
didn't see much utility.
So what are the backwards compatibility implications?
One off the top of my head is code like this...
sub is_object {
my($thing) = shift;
return eval { $thing->isa("UNIVERSAL") };
}
But I wonder how many people do something like that, what its used for and
if anything would really break if everything were an object.
> And moreover the feature list for 5.10 is
> frozen (almost), because at some point we have to release.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply squeezing it into 5.10. Whether it makes it
into 5.10 or 5.12 or 5.14 is a whole other issue. Right now I just want to
crack the discussion back open.
