nobu / ruby-lang.org wrote:
> Matz's intention is to use back-ticks for a different syntax,
> not to deprecate the command substitution feature.

I think that is dangerous to have the meaning of any syntax element
become something else, even removing it entirely would be less bad.

I have some scripts which are not used for several years at a
time, so they may never be run during the 2.x cycle.  Having
back-tick do something entirely different in 3.x can give a
false positive on success, that potentially causes data loss or
corruption.

False positives is worse than complete failure of a script.


That said, I see back-ticks are used improperly all the time.
For example, I would support adding warnings and suggestions to
use system() instead of being used in a void context.  Dangerous
interpolation would be one use case for keeping taint, even.

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>