At 8:20 Uhr -0700 17.05.2001, ehughes wrote:
>on 5/17/01 7:09 AM, Thomas Wegner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Hello Thomas,
>
>Thank you for your suggestion. Interestingly I did pretty much exactly what
>you suggested. I downloaded the module using Fetch. I uncompressed it using
>Stuffit Expander, and I did drop it on the installme.plx droplet from
>Chris's cpan-mac 0.50 module.
>
>So far so good.
>
>I tried running my little test script and it came back saying I needed to
>install Parse:RecDescent. This must be something new with WriteExcel 0.31.
>So I repeated my earlier steps with RecDescent and it installed. Prior to
>running the script, I took a look inside RecDescent.pm and found this:
>
>use 5.005;
>
>I am currently using MacPerl version 5.2.0r4 (17Apr98), which I believe is
>based on 5.004.
Right.
>So, now the questions are what is the difference between 5.005 and 5.004?
The document
http://www.perldoc.com/perl5.6/pod/perl5005delta.html
describes the differences between Perl 5.004 and Perl 5.005.
The Perl 5.005 regular expression engine has been seriously overhauled and supports
many new constructs that Perl 5.004 doesn't. That's probably the main reason why
Spreadsheet-WriteExcel-0.31 and Parse:RecDescent-1.80 will not work with 5.004 (unless
you hack them -- but that would be an enormous task, I guess).
>Is it time to download MacPerl 5.6.1a?
Just because I was curious, I tried Spreadsheet-WriteExcel-0.31 and
Parse:RecDescent-1.80 with MacPerl 5.6.1a2. The good news is: Installs fine and all
tests pass. The bad news is: There's probably a problem with IO::File::new_tmpfile
(used by WriteExcel). However, this doesn't prevent WriteExcel from writing the
spreadsheet files (I tried the stocks.pl and simple.pl examples), because all the
temporary stuff is done in memory if IO::File::new_tmpfile fails. But note that
IO::File::new_tmpfile at the moment erroneously creates some cryptic files on the
startup volume.
After all, it's up to you to decide if it's time to download the new MacPerl 5.6.1.
It's still in development, but is fairly stable -- and testers are always welcome ;-).
>Is there a simpler, more elegant
>solution?
>Thank you for all of your help,
>
>Elton
>
Best regards,
--Thomas
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
