James G Smith wrote: > Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Stas Bekman wrote: >> >>>since we use 'our' in the autogenerated .pm files, requiring 5.6.1 is >>>probably a good idea: >>> >>> >>[snip] >> >> >>> package $module; >>>+require 5.6.1; >>> >>it probably doesn't matter, but isn't that format deprecated now? bleedperl reports >> >>v-string in use/require non-portable at -e line 1. >> >>for formats like that (with warnings enabled), so I've been changing all mine to >> >>require 5.006001; >> >>instead. >> > > Well, `require 5.6.1' won't be understood by Perl before 5.6.0. I > don't think it's as much deprecated as not understood by the Perls > we're trying to avoid. > > I don't see any problems with using it for other modules once we've > established we're in >=5.6.0.
I think it's been already established that mod_perl 2.0 requires 5.6.1, 5.6.0 is too buggy. > Of course, if you really want a separater in there, you can always do > `require 5.006_001;' > > That all said, `require 5.6.1;' will keep the code from running on > <5.6.1, but will give odd error messages for <5.6.0 (that is, > sensical error messages that don't point to the root cause). So then I guess we should use 'require 5.006_001' everywhere. There are just a few places where this is required. _____________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
