On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:39:44PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote: > * "Philippe Bruhat (BooK)" <email@example.com> [2012-05-23T10:30:35]
> > Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
> > (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.
> The file can be viewed at
> I am very on-the-fence about this. First off, I'm not including documentation
> that makes goatse references or sperm jokes.
Even if the document is not listed in perl.pod and generated documents like perltoc? > This document is one more thing that we'll get patches and bug reports for, but
> its only real value is fun, which makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps if it was in
> perlfaq, and updating it came as part of regular updates, and maintenance was
> non-core, that cost would be basically zero.
So you mean make it dual-lived? > I do appreciate a bit of whimsy now and then, though.
> So, what I'm wondering is: what's the cost/benefit tradeoff, here?
Cost (or rather, arguments to convice you the cost is minimal):
- I'm willing to do the maintenance work on it.
- I'm not ready to include any random combination of punctuation that
is ascii-artish (I tried to include things that are in wide use, or
at least have been presented at conferences or have some usefulness)
- I agree that having "sperm" and "goatse" in the official documentation
is a very tempting opportunity for get Perl-haters to ridicule it.
I'm ready to remove those terms from the document to get it included.
(and already pushed a patch to that end)
- as mentioned in the thread, some of those operators are well-known
enough that it's nice to have them in one place, with some explanation
of how they work
- it's a serious document, with an matching test script (writing the
test script actually lead to improvement of the document itself),
and a long list of references
- it's fun and educational!
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)
There are two sides to every cause. Do not join one until you know the other.
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #105 (Epic))