Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >
> > Perl should fly far and fast from starting down the bumpy road where
> > that data is strongly typed in the mythical and deceptive text-vs-binary
> > sense ... Heed the wisdom of the Unix ...
I shouldn't have used the term "binary" in the proposal because that's not the
distinction. Usage determines whether or not the string is likely to be meant to
be readable. An attempt at some added DWIMishness. The data are never examined.
I've removed all references to "binary" so people won't misconstrue.
(I know that's not the totality of your point; I just wanted to clarify.)
> Tom's exactly right. Data should be data, at least by default.
>
> One of the beauties of UNIX, and one of the reasons it doesn't suck
> (unlike some other "operating systems") is that it's guided by
> simplicity: everthing's a file, and a file contains data. No drive
> letters or .txt vs .exe files to ruin your day.
I can't argue with any of that. And true to that spirit, no data were harmed in
the creation of this RFC! The DWIMish behavior regarding strings, packed or not,
is largely retained. The changes seem to me to apply only to a narrow range of
situations, and those only when asked. I've endeavored to arrange things such
that this RFC will not change how people use perl now, but will reduce the
occurance of one class of errors.
> As the examples show, this is an infinitely complicated issue.
Perhaps it is to those of you who can see more of the Perl landscape than I, but
from down here the RFC looks well cirucmscribed and limited. If there *is*
infinite complexity looming, obviously it will never be done; no need for
further argument on this list.
> [... snip ...]
> Basically, I think the type of stuff you suggest is best viewed as
> *extensions* to Perl, and not default behavior that could potentially
> cause many more problems than it solves.
The example code was meant to convey that the additional checking is only done
when explicitly invoked via C<use strict 'packed'> and/or C<use warnings
'packed'>. Perhaps I should make that more explicit. In a sense, it's already
proposed to be sort of an extension, just one which is provided to everyone.
Everyone's short of tuits, but I'd love to see some hint of where you think this
causes problems.
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
