4 ms·
Yes for Perl 5->7, but it would be good to have a solid-ish feature change or addition to justify the jump and promote it. When I see that we still don't have
by wott 7y ago
Yes for Perl 5->7, but it would be good to have a solid-ish feature change or addition to justify the jump and promote it.
When I see that we still don't have a simple "is item 'in' set" operator, 12 (?) years after the introduction of smartmatch and 5 or 6 years after its half-retraction...
(Well, we still have no sets either :-), let's talk about lists/arrays...)
When I see we still don't have a clean function parameters declaration system (better than the mess with prototypes and signatures)...
When I see that constants, enums, simple structured data (C-like-ish structs) still have to be simulated with functions and/or objects and the weight which comes together...
...On one hand, it gives a set of features that could be used to justify a jump. On the other hand, if these basic features has never been deemed useful by the language leaders until now (that is, during a couple of decades), I have little hope they will change their minds.
- bmn__ 7y agoThere is little strain on the "language leaders" (that would be barking up the wrong tree, anyway) as the features you named with one exception are already done and have been available for years. • "is item 'in' set" operator: https://metacpan.org/pod/Syntax::Feature::In https://metacpan.org/pod/Syntax::Feature::In • sets: https://metacpan.org/pod/Set::Object https://metacpan.org/pod/Set::Object • clean function parameters declaration system: https://metacpan.org/pod/Kavorka::Manual::Signatures https://metacpan.org/pod/Kavorka::Manual::Signatures • constants that are not functions/objects: https://metacpan.org/pod/Const::Fast https://metacpan.org/pod/Const::Fast • enums that are not functions/objects: ? • structs that are not functions/objects: pack/unpack, for explanation see https://metacpan.org/pod/Convert::Binary::C https://metacpan.org/pod/Convert::Binary::C