Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:43:13PM +0200, Mark Overmeer wrote:
* Daniel Carrera (daniel.carr...@theingots.org) [090529 11:42]:
"CPAN shall not piggyback another language" -- from ZCAN.
Judging from the ZCAN page, I don't expect that uploading Ruby modules
to CPAN will go well, even if that module can be compiled to Parrot. The
ZCAN page gave good reasons for this.
Agreed: do not merge sets of unrelated data! Perl6 and Perl5 are
unrelated sets of data. The only relation is the people who use it.
CPAN is the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network.
Not the Comprehensive Perl 5 Archive Network.
I agree with Nicholas. I disagree with Mark. Though Mark may have
replied to my comment with the word "Agreed", I never said that we
should separate Perl 5 and Perl 6!!! That is Mark's idea, not mine.
As Nicholas says, CPAN is the Comprehensive *Perl* (not "Perl 5")
Archive Network. The example in my email was *Ruby*. Ruby is not Perl.
But Perl 6 is Perl.
I think that it would be a good idea to put Perl 5 and Perl 6 modules in
the same CPAN. Not only do I not want to fragment CPAN, but for at least
several years Perl 6 programs will depend heavily on Perl 5 modules. So
all those Perl 5 modules up there in CPAN right now are going to be the
first "Perl 6" modules (via "use v5").