Re: protected.pm (more Class::Fields)

[andreas.koenig@anima.de (Andreas J. Koenig)]

>>>>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 02:46:41 -0800, Gurusamy Sarathy <gsar@activestate.com> said:

>>>> Maybe there ought to be some sort of a expiry date on the "experimental"
>>>> stuff.  If something doesn't pass the experimental stages for a couple
>>>> of major release cycles, perhaps it should be thrown out altogether.
>>>> What say?

Rereading this paragraph, I can't agree more. And I'd say that an
experimental feature that makes it into two consecutive stable perl
versions should be regarded as an upgrade to non-experimental status
unless perldelta redeclares the experimental status. Or some such. I
believe there is a need to reconsider all experimental features with
every new release.

>> I'm a bit surprised that base and fields stuff is experimental. Both
>> were in 5.005_03 and I see nothing in the documentation of 5.00503
>> that marks them experimental (Checked pods of base.pm, fields.pm,
>> perldelta.pod). Am I blind?

 > L<perl5.005_03/pod/perlref.pod/"Pseudo-hashes:  Using an array as a hash">:

 >     WARNING:  This section describes an experimental feature.  Details may
 >     change without notice in future versions.

Ouch.

 > But you're right, fields.pm should have something in it as well.

I plead for a higher level of care in redesigning it because the
experimental status was not that obvious. Can you tell, I like
fields.pm?

-- 
andreas

---

References to:

Gurusamy Sarathy <gsar@activestate.com>

---

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

---