2012/10/11 Stevan Little <stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com> > 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
Great! Who else will vote? Olivier.
