Michael G Schwern wrote:
I'm going through some work to restore Test::More and Test::Harness to work
on 5.4.5, minor stuff really, and I'm wondering if its worth the trouble.
Has anyone seen 5.004_xx in the wild? And if so, were people actively
developing using it or was it just there to run
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:00:57PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
I've seen it on occasion, and it's general on large old IRIX servers,
and similar aged things. CVS repositories and other boxes that have
provided the same services pretty much forever and have never had a
compelling reason to
On 7/4/05, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going through some work to restore Test::More and Test::Harness to work
on 5.4.5, minor stuff really, and I'm wondering if its worth the trouble.
Has anyone seen 5.004_xx in the wild? And if so, were people actively
developing using
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:00:57PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
I'm going through some work to restore Test::More and Test::Harness to work
on 5.4.5, minor stuff really, and I'm wondering if its worth the trouble.
Has anyone seen 5.004_xx in the wild? And if so,
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:36:39AM +0100, Ben Evans wrote:
I would say that this cascade effect is precisely why you *should*
drop 5.004 compatability. There's no excuse other than if it ain't broke,
don't fix it for running such an archaic Perl. People should be encouraged
to move to a more
From: Michael G Schwern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:36:39AM +0100, Ben Evans wrote:
I would say that this cascade effect is precisely why you *should*
drop 5.004 compatability. There's no excuse other than if it ain't
broke,
don't fix it for running such an
I've just been through the should-I-shouldn't-I-support-5.4 with my
(painfully slow) rewrite of Compress::Zlib. In the end I
...
I always thought that Compress::Zlib is just a wrapper around zlib which in
turn is C and developed elsewhere (and in stable state for a long time now).
What is
Ben Evans wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:00:57PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
I'm going through some work to restore Test::More and Test::Harness to work
on 5.4.5, minor stuff really, and I'm wondering if its worth the trouble.
Has anyone seen 5.004_xx in the wild?
From: Konovalov, Vadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've just been through the should-I-shouldn't-I-support-5.4 with my
(painfully slow) rewrite of Compress::Zlib. In the end I
...
I always thought that Compress::Zlib is just a wrapper around zlib which
in
turn is C and developed
What is (painfully slow) rewrite?
I think Paul means that it is taking him a long time to
write the code,
not that the code itself is slow.
Correct. Looks like I answered the wrong question :-)
Indeed I understood incorrectly first time, but you shed quite many light on
other
From: David Landgren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Konovalov, Vadim wrote:
I've just been through the should-I-shouldn't-I-support-5.4 with my
(painfully slow) rewrite of Compress::Zlib. In the end I
...
I always thought that Compress::Zlib is just a wrapper around zlib which
in
turn
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:00:14AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:36:39AM +0100, Ben Evans wrote:
I would say that this cascade effect is precisely why you *should*
drop 5.004 compatability. There's no excuse
Paul Johnson wrote:
As someone whose production code is currently required to run under
5.5.3, I'm very grateful to module authors whose code still runs under
that version at least. A number of modules which don't run under 5.5.3
do with simple changes, primarily changing our to use vars and
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:59:23PM -0400, James E Keenan wrote:
I've only developed in 5.6+ environments. Can anyone provide a link to
what I would have to do to make my modules compatible with 5.4 and/or 5.5?
Step one: Install 5.4.5 and 5.5.4.
Step two: Try out your module with them.
Michael G Schwern wrote:
That said, here's the main differences:
Thanks. My modules are sufficiently non-evil that I should be able to
compensate for these differences.
jimk
Paul Marquess wrote:
Whilst I'm here, when I do get around to posting a beta on CPAN, I'd
prefer
it doesn't get used in anger until it has bedded-in. If I give the
module a
version number like 2.000_00, will the CPAN shell ignore it?
Indeed, if a distribution is numbered with such a number,
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 14:19:16 +0100, Paul Marquess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
If I give the module a version number like 2.000_00, will the CPAN
shell ignore it?
Yes. To be precice, the indexer on PAUSE will ignore it. But don't
forget to write it with quotes around.
--
andreas
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Paul Marquess wrote:
Whilst I'm here, when I do get around to posting a beta on CPAN, I'd prefer
it doesn't get used in anger until it has bedded-in. If I give the module a
version number like 2.000_00, will the CPAN shell ignore it?
This is often done
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:40:20PM -0400, James E Keenan wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
That said, here's the main differences:
I'm about a year out from seeing a Perl 4 in the wild, so, I'll assume
that early Perl 5's can be found if you look long enough.
Steve Peters
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:24:38AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
There's an easy way to see what's accptable and what's not and what
exactly this level equality means. Consider the following code
template:
###
# lots of stuff doing anything you like including
# setting global variables
20 matches
Mail list logo