Ken Williams wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
>
>> After a number of incidents, it would appear that putting the Perl
>> version
>> dependency into requires is just too problematic to be an appropriate
>> solution.
>
> Why?
Because cramming two meanings into one name sucks. It complicates the
implementation and invites users to forget the less frequent of the two
meanings creating subtle bugs.
"requires" and all it's ilk can be described as "the key is a module name and
the value is a version number... UNLESS the key is 'perl' in which case the
value is the version of perl". If that was a subroutine's documentation I'd
tell you to split it into two routines.
Let's put it on it's head. We control META.yml. META.yml consumers have to
write special code to handle "requires: perl" anyway. What's the advantage of
doubling up the meaning of "requires"? It didn't take advantage of any
existing code or meaning.
Why not make up a new key?
--
Just call me 'Moron Sugar'.
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05182002.shtml
