Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
>> >> Perl should not support disabling -t/-T by making it not fatal, and >> adding that kind of option to Configure is already supporting it. People >> that want this kind of broken behaviour can hack the core themselves and >> get shot in the foot all they want. > > Hmm, point taken and slightly surprised by the vehemence of your > response. I respectfully disagree, though. Sometimes I have definite opinions on things, and sometimes I voice them. They may or may not overlap with yours. > Taint support doesn't feel part of the language. It's a built-in linter, > not a language feature. IMO, patching it out in any way is nowhere near > as questionable as, say, removing support for formats. Formats are used > much less frequently, yet removing them would change the language in a > significant way. Anyway, that's just to explain where I'm coming from. I > think that clearly documenting the nature of the switch (expert only, > potential security risk if used wrongly, ...) is sufficient due diligence. I just don't want Perl to support silent code breakage, especially when the only motivation is a slight performance improvement. > Two compromises that would make sense to me: > > 1) Only support a configure flag for the variant where -t/-T is fatal. > Keep the Perl-internal, undocumented (but obviously named) define so > that whoever wants to use the silent variant doesn't have to maintain > patches against Perl or if anything, only patches that are limited to > very simple and localized changes. What I objected against was it being *non fatal*, so I'm fine with this as long as it's not documented and not available through Configure. But note that this adds maintenance cost to the core for an undocumented feature, and I thought the trend was to go the other way. > 2) Support two variants in Configure: fatal and warning (no silent > variant). At the time the warning is printed it's already too late, so that's as bad as no warning at all. And I guess that those who want the silent variant will not be satisfied by seeing that warning every time. > Both compromises are perfectly fine with me. > > Does that make sense? > > Best regards, > Steffen Vincent.Thread Previous | Thread Next