httpd-test-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>
Subject Re: switching t_cmp() argument order
Date Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:39:06 GMT


Stas Bekman wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
> 
>>> But it's quite possible that argument could be readonly while not a
>>> string, a simple example is a return value of a function:
>>>
>>> % perl -le 'a(b(), "b"); sub a {($_[0], $_[1]) = ($_[1], $_[0]);}; \
>>>            sub b { 5 }'
>>> Modification of a read-only value attempted at -e line 1.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you need to revisit that example :)
> 
> 
> I fail to see what do you mean.

perl -le 'a(b(), c()); sub a {($_[0], $_[1]) = ($_[1], $_[0]);}; \
  sub b{5}; sub c{6};

> 
>> ok, the attached patch reflects that.
> 
> 
> excellent!
> 
> the only remaining nit is the deprecation cycle, let's say we happen to
> release the next few versions within this month, then you hit 1.15
> really soon. I think it's a matter of time and not release numbers. So
> may be it's better to say, let's give people some 3 months to move over
> and set a certain date as a cutoff rather than a version number? Just an
> idea...

sure, we could do that, but then the cutoff isn't really clear.  I think
that three revisions will get us through at least another mod_perl release,
when people are perhaps likely to glance at the Changes file.

but if we need more time I think we can take it.  if the deprecation cycle
is very long (like 3 new releases takes us a year) I don't think that's
necessarily a bad thing.

but either way is fine.  I just didn't want it removed in, say, the release
after the next one.

--Geoff

Mime
View raw message