2009/7/30 Kevin Ryde via RT <bug-PPI@rt.cpan.org>:
Show quoted text> Queue: PPI
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=48218 >
>
> "Reserved Local Account via RT" <bug-PPI@rt.cpan.org> writes:
>>
>> I could put a temporary ->isa hack into ::For that will return true
>> for ::ForLoop and warn, would that be enough?
>
> It'd help, but not with a warning please. Blasting users with warnings
> would be worse than some perlcritic false-positives.
>
> (Users of course can do little about warnings, it's authors using PPI
> who would have to be contacted, and even then of course they may be too
> overloaded to act immediately.)
Good point about the blasting. I'll make the warning so that it only
fires once per process.
Show quoted text> Is there actually a reason to change beyond the cosmetic? I'd encourage
> you to either not to do it, or to save it up and do it in the future
> with the next unavoidable compatibility-break. Batching up at least
> keeps down the number of occasions authors and users are asked to do
> work.
Yes, there is a reason.
The current implementation of for ( ... ) { ... } parsing treats all
types of ( ... ) as a "For Loop".
This is incorrect. That structure is going to be EITHER a legitimate
PPI::Structure::For ( a braced three-statement triplet, ala C for
loops ) or it's going to be a list of values.
In the new release, the latter will change to show up as a
PPI::Structure::List instead.
This is a pretty serious change, so I felt the time was right to
correct to split the old hybrid name into a different one.
I'll look at keeping an altered version of ForLoop around to serve as
a container for the dealing with the transition.
Adam K
Show quoted text>> simultaneous release
>
> That's a bit unfortunate. Lock-step upgrades of multiple dists and
> their add-ons gets painful.
>
>
RT for rt.cpan.org