perl-embperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ed Grimm <>
Subject RE: [$ hidden $] bug in 2.0?
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:16:01 GMT
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Richter wrote:

> Neil,
> Basicly I agree to your argumentation. The point why it is like it is,
> is that it should be the same as in 1.3 . The difference is the
> different handling of spaces, which is not part of the hidden command,
> but is due to the new parser.
> The point is that changing it, might break applications that depends
> on the current behaviour (not sure if such applications really
> exists). My plan was to release final 2.0 next weekend and I don't
> know if it is a good idea to change something like this at this point.
> On the other side, if we want to change it, it needs to be done right
> now.

I would vote to change it.  I do not see the value in having hidden
ignore updates to %fdat; I also think it's pretty natural to put the
spaces in.  Current 2.0rc behavior violates the surprise principle,

I could see puting in a backwards compatability option, for those people
who have made use of this bug.  (IMHO, the real bug was the [$hidden$]
behavior, not the [$ hidden $] behavior.)

Disclaimer: In all of my pages, I've only used hidden once, and that
invocation uses explicit arguments.  As such, I may not correctly
userstand how people would normally think implicit arguments work.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message