Re: [perl #57438] [DEPRECATED] [PDD19] .pragma n_operators

2008-11-13 Thread Allison Randal
Will Coleda via RT wrote: This appears to be the only .pragma; should we leave a placeholder or just remove .pragma entirely when we remove this particular one? Nuke it. Allison

[perl #57438] [DEPRECATED] [PDD19] .pragma n_operators

2008-11-04 Thread Will Coleda via RT
On Wed Jul 30 13:06:06 2008, coke wrote: From PDD19: =item .pragma n_operators [deprecated] This appears to be the only .pragma; should we leave a placeholder or just remove .pragma entirely when we remove this particular one? -- Will Coke Coleda

Re: [perl #57438] [DEPRECATED] [PDD19] .pragma n_operators

2008-11-04 Thread Klaas-Jan Stol
I'd say kill it, and if we ever want to introduce new pragmas into PIR, we reintroduce. This way, .pragma keyword is not recognized without a reason. (recently I've become a great fan of being able to override commandline options with directives in the file processed; .pragma directive would be

[perl #57438] [DEPRECATED] [PDD19] .pragma n_operators

2008-10-18 Thread Andrew Whitworth via RT
On Tue Aug 05 05:58:41 2008, kjs wrote: As far as I could see, it seems that the whole n_operators thing is no longer mentioned in pdd19. if it's what Pm thinks, just a change from .pragma n_operators to .n_operators, then that should be added. kjs On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:56 PM,

Re: [perl #57438] [DEPRECATED] [PDD19] .pragma n_operators

2008-10-18 Thread Allison Randal
Andrew Whitworth via RT wrote: After the pdd27mmd merge, all the n_* opcodes are gone now. I assume the .pragma n_operators can disappear with them? Yes. (The n_* opcodes aren't quite all gone yet, but nearly and soon.) Allison

Re: [perl #57438] [DEPRECATED] [PDD19] .pragma n_operators

2008-08-05 Thread Klaas-Jan Stol
As far as I could see, it seems that the whole n_operators thing is no longer mentioned in pdd19. if it's what Pm thinks, just a change from .pragma n_operators to .n_operators, then that should be added. kjs On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Thu,

Re: [perl #57438] [DEPRECATED] [PDD19] .pragma n_operators

2008-08-02 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:07:49AM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote: On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:06 PM, via RT Will Coleda wrote From PDD19: =item .pragma n_operators [deprecated] does this mean that by default all ops will have the n_ prefix by default? That would imply some variants of these

Re: [perl #57438] [DEPRECATED] [PDD19] .pragma n_operators

2008-07-31 Thread Klaas-Jan Stol
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:06 PM, via RT Will Coleda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #57438] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=57438

[perl #57438] [DEPRECATED] [PDD19] .pragma n_operators

2008-07-30 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #57438] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=57438 From PDD19: =item .pragma n_operators [deprecated] -- Will Coke Coleda