From: Rafael Garcia-Suarez Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:43:23 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Smart matching is to-done. X-Git-Url: http://git.shadowcat.co.uk/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=054b75b0acb048c615059d324b6ffff3b9bba2b3;p=p5sagit%2Fp5-mst-13.2.git Smart matching is to-done. --- diff --git a/pod/perltodo.pod b/pod/perltodo.pod index 0a75e70..e4be910 100644 --- a/pod/perltodo.pod +++ b/pod/perltodo.pod @@ -26,55 +26,6 @@ programming languages offer you 1 line of immortality? =head1 Tasks that only need Perl knowledge -=head2 Smartmatch design issues - -In 5.10.0 the smartmatch operator C<~~> isn't working quite "right". But -before we can fix the implementation, we need to define what "right" is. -The first problem is that Robin Houston implemented the Perl 6 smart match -spec as of February 2006, when smart match was axiomatically symmetrical: -L - -Since then the Perl 6 target moved, but the Perl 5 implementation did not. - -So it would be useful for someone to compare the Perl 6 smartmatch table -as of February 2006 L -and the current table L -and tabulate the differences in Perl 6. The annotated view of changes is -L and the diff is -C --- search for C<=head1 Smart matching>. (In theory F can generate that, -but in practice when I tried it hung forever, I assume "thinking") - -With that done and published, someone (else) can then map any changed Perl 6 -semantics back to Perl 5, based on how the existing semantics map to Perl 5: -L - - -There are also some questions that need answering: - -=over 4 - -=item * - -How do you negate one? (documentation issue) -http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2008-01/msg00071.html - -=item * - -Array behaviors -http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2007-12/msg00799.html - -* Should smart matches be symmetrical? (Perl 6 says no) - -* Other differences between Perl 5 and Perl 6 smart match? - -=item * - -Objects and smart match -http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2007-12/msg00865.html - -=back - =head2 Remove duplication of test setup. Schwern notes, that there's duplication of code - lots and lots of tests have