In article <p05100305b78732f23787@[192.168.0.151]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Nandor) wrote:
> Correct. Not prepared to do it, might consider it. I won't be prepared to
> do it until I have properly considered it. I am willing to consider it,
> but not right now, since my brain is otherwise engaged, and (as noted
> below) there is not as much reason for it in 5.6.1 as there is in 5.2.0r4.
To be honest I've always wondered why the original had site_perl *after*
lib, and not before, in the hard-coded default, which to me made no
sense since you then wind up with site_perl listed twice in @INC when
you add it manually in preferences. *boggle*
> >Since, in order for cpan-mac to work properly, you HAVE to put site_perl
> >first. Yet, in the default, it's not that way.
>
> cpan-mac probably won't exist for MacPerl 5.6.1 and following. All the
> modules in cpan-mac are now included in MacPerl 5.6.1a4.
Always nice to be the boss, isn't it? (: I'm glad to hear this however.
> >Putting site_perl in @INC first has the same effect, but without that
> >drastic, irreversible result.
>
> What it does do is make the behavior for Unix perl and MacPerl different,
> and I need to give careful thought before doing that. Especially since, as
What, the behaviour of MacPerl and Unix Perl isn't already different? (:
> noted above, it isn't really necessary for most people to do. :-) I will
> consider it, most likely, but not now. If you really want it done, please
> add it to Feature Requests, and we can revisit the issue at a later date.
> I won't even get back to MacPerl development for another few weeks, so
> please be patient.
So noted. *gets the mouthwash for the baited breath*
--
Scott R. Godin | e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Laughing Dragon Services | web : http://www.webdragon.net/
