From: Trevor D. (Twylite) <tw...@cr...> - 2012-11-18 17:07:14
|
Hi, On 2012/11/18 05:50 PM, Karl Lehenbauer wrote: > I request that we resist the effort to pivot the conversation from wart removal to ideas for new language features. Frankly to the degree I even understand them they seem quirky and I don't get what problem that's hard to solve with Tcl is being made easier. A move to version 9 is a once-in-a-long-time opportunity to break backwards compatibility. While I'd love to see a Tcl 9.0 out of the door in a reasonable time, decisions about what compatibility to break - or not to break - should not be taken lightly or hastily. Even if Tcl 9 doesn't include new features, I think that it is imperative to include compatibility-breaking support for new features. In particular we need to consider extending Tcl_Obj. The limitations of Tcl_Obj come up every now and then on Tcl-core, and there is a discussion at http://wiki.tcl.tk/16168 . So far as I am aware we cannot implement closures without modifying Tcl_Obj (or at least Tcl_ObjType). I think the issues of leading word expansion, removing the command/variable dichotomy, and removing the command/command-prefix distinction also deserve attention. Links include http://wiki.tcl.tk/12262, http://wiki.tcl.tk/19897 and http://wiki.tcl.tk/8703. The dangerous interaction of vwait/update and coroutines also needs consideration. There three issues (and I'm sure there are others) cannot be dealt with later in the 9.x cycle. Ideas like adding macro support, or syntactic sugar for dict/list, or many other items on the Tcl 9.0 wishlist (http://wiki.tcl.tk/883) can be handled later. Regards, Twylite |