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 of
>>>> maintaining them seems a bit lofty.
>>> Surely, the idea of keeping the release number below 1.0 is to warn
>>> early adopter developers that code is subject to change and thus in
>>> need of maintenance?
>> ... 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. Modules they are usually not all that familiar with, and
>> usually don't have direct access. So they need to go through the pull
>> request dance, waiting for reaction from the maintainer. In short, it
>> sucks.
> Thanks for the explanation, Moritz. That does make sense.
>
> I'm still a _little_ uneasy because that sounds a bit like the
> explanation of why Makefiles have to use tab characters:
>
>   I just did something simple with the pattern newline-tab. It worked,
>   it stayed. And then a few weeks later I had a user population of about
>   a dozen, most of them friends, and I didn't want to screw up my
>   embedded base. The rest, sadly, is history.
>   
>     — Stuart Feldman http://stackoverflow.com/a/1765566/1366011
>
> Though the important difference is that invisible whitespace characters
> that some editors don't even let you type are particularly
> beginner-hostile, whereas allowing undef arguments where they don't make
> sense (and hence where callers don't generally try supplying undef) is
> something that many Perl 5 programs have been doing for years with no
> widespread harm.
>
> Cheers
>
> Smylers
Btw, In my opinion the current model about :D etc is very correct. I
don't see any need to change the
defaults as how type objects or their definedness is implementet.
Changing for example the params
to mean Int:D by default when one writes Int is something you have to
explain a lot. And in fact it is a lie.
There are some basic rules about Perl 6 like TIMTOWTDI and DRY, but
there is also a rule about "All is
fair if you predeclare". But if I don't predeclare that I mean Int:D by
writing Int, then the compiler is
not allowed to change the meaning of what I wrote.

That said, if there was a change that justifies breaking a lot of stuff,
I'm for it. But here it is certainly
not the case.

--
Tobias