On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Olivier Mengué wrote: > 2012/10/9 Jesse Luehrs <d...@tozt.net> > > I'm not sure I see the benefit here, at least as long as we're still >> supporting 5.8. > > > Beside my original extract of the POD of each modules, just have a look to > base.pm code vs parent.pm. > > Also parent.pm is dual-life, so 5.8 compat is not an issue, except for the > additional dependency. > And parent.pm has already more than 500 CPAN distributions directly > depending on it (according to MetaCPAN reverse dependency results), so many > CPAN users still using perl 5.8 already have it. > > >> Is there a particular reason you're interested in this >> change? > > > I've started my quest to kill 'use base' and 'use base "Exporter"' a few > years ago and have helped to get 'parent' spread. > (I've ongoing work to fix Perl::Critic and add a Perl::Critic policy: my > first step is to get rid of base.pm in Perl::Critic itself, but this takes > time : 5 months in RT#75300) > > But as long as high profile modules such as Moose still use 'base' instead > of 'parent', 'base' will never die. People think « if Moose uses it, it's > fine to use it in my code », and 'parent' keeps being unnoticed. So keeping > 'use base' in Moose helps to keep 'base' alive. > > Finally, if using Moose is modern Perl, Moose should use 'parent' and show > the light to its users.
I don't think this last sentence can be argued with, my vote it to merge it. - Stevan
