Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:43:13PM +0200, Mark Overmeer wrote:
* Daniel Carrera ( [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.

I disagree.


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").


Reply via email to