Re: Exploit the versioning (was Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0)

Short answer: everything must declare which semantics it expects- everything in Panda/CPAN at least. And we already knew it, just need to do it. Full post: This thread points to a bigger problem, which has a solution that is both cultural and technical. Perl5 has a colossal code corpus, humbling

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

On 10/15/2015 10:47 AM, Smylers wrote: Moritz Lenz writes: On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out. On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote: We have 390+ modules, and hand-waving away all trouble of maintaining them

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

> On 15 Oct 2015, at 12:57, Mark Overmeer wrote: > > * Elizabeth Mattijsen (l...@dijkmat.nl) [151015 10:43]: >> FWIW, I’m with FROGGS on this. >> use variables :D; > > In the first response to this message, Moritz spoke about > use invocant :D; > and use parameters :D; >

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

> On 15 Oct 2015, at 11:06, Tobias Leich wrote: > Am 15.10.2015 um 10:47 schrieb Smylers: >> Moritz Lenz writes: >> >>> On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: >>> Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out. On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM,

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

Am 15.10.2015 um 10:47 schrieb Smylers: > Moritz Lenz writes: > >> On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: >> >>> Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out. >>> >>> On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote: We have 390+ modules, and hand-waving away all trouble

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

Moritz Lenz writes: > On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: > > > Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out. > > > > On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote: > > > > > > We have 390+ modules, and hand-waving away all trouble of > > > maintaining them seems a bit

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote: >... We have 390+ modules, and hand-waving away all > trouble of maintaining them seems a bit lofty. > ... a large percentage of the module updates are done by group of > maybe five to a dozen volunteers. ... 5 people updating 70% of 390 > modules.

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

Moritz rant away! Actually, I think this it is a very significant milestone in the development of a language and its ecosystem when backwards compatibility becomes an issue. There will always be modules that have bit rot, insufficient documentation, inadequate testing, no reviews, etc. The

Re: Exploit the versioning (was Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0)

On 2015-10-15 5:27 AM, yary wrote: Short answer: everything must declare which semantics it expects- everything in Panda/CPAN at least. And we already knew it, just need to do it. I believe this is something Perl 6 should require in general, if it doesn't. That is, it should be MANDATORY for

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out. On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote: But hopefully none of them breaking backwards compatibility on such a large scale. The last few backwards incompatible changes still cause

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

* Moritz Lenz (mor...@faui2k3.org) [151014 09:54]: > In Practice, there's a small number of people who try to update modules to > match when the compiler changed. Most module authors don't hang out in > #perl6, eager to update their modules to the lastest rakudo change. With the relatively small

Exploit the versioning (was Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0)

I have a proposal. Unlike with say the GLR, perhaps this whole :D thing may be a good test case for the Perl 6 feature of explicit language versioning. How about we don't make the :D change now, and give more thought as to whether we actually want to do it at all. If we do decide it is

Re: Exploit the versioning (was Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0)

On 2015-10-14 6:14 AM, Parrot Raiser wrote: Is this particular change one that could be implemented algorithmically, or at least partially so? (E.g. For all modules check for the presence of a ":D". If it's there, no action. If not, insert a line of code. Run a test. If

Re: Exploit the versioning (was Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0)

Is this particular change one that could be implemented algorithmically, or at least partially so? (E.g. For all modules check for the presence of a ":D". If it's there, no action. If not, insert a line of code. Run a test. If successful, post change. If not, alert a

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

I had a related thought. We want Perl 6 to be the best it can be out of the gate when it is declared production ready at Christmas or whatever. If it is better for the default to be that parameters must be defined where not explicitly declared otherwise, then that is what Perl 6 should