https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7107
--- Comment #6 from John Hardin <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #5) > (In reply to Benny Pedersen from comment #4) > > (In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #2) > > > Might be easier and safer to include a function that takes a parameter of > > > min version perl and then returns 1/0 if version is equal or greater. > > > > was it not max perl version here ? > > I do not think so. I'm thinking the variable is the minimum perl version > that works for the if loop. Correct. > By using the "can" functionality, this should work for old versions of SA > seamlessly to ignore the functionality as well as new versions. Using "perl_version" does the same at the cost of a warning at startup, and I think "perl_version" is much neater (and simpler, but I haven't looked at the code yet) than a can() as you suggest. > Theory is that old versions of SA won't have the function and will always > fail. I tested that as I was composing this bug. "IF perl_version >= 5.010000" emits a warning about perl_version and skips the block, so it should be fail-safe for old releases of SA and should start working automatically once perl_version gets defined. The can() approach would be preferred if we really don't want the warning, but I prefer perl_version even with the warning because it's terse, unambiguous and complements the existing "version" var. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
