Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-12 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:52:44PM -0400, James E Keenan wrote: qr// is the only thing I really miss. After spending/wasting a couple of hours trying to do regex tests with just 'ok', I agree. like() takes a string. like( $foo, qr/regex/ ); # same like( $foo,

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-06 Thread Abigail
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:21:01PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: Unfortunately, upgrading isn't always an option. Anyone can type $ ./Configure -des make make test install but putting the results of such a command into a base operating system installation, testing that said operating

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-06 Thread David Nicol
On 7/5/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel your pain and I will share it. How far each author goes down the backwards compatibility route is obviously up to them, and as a volunteer effort no one has any right to get upset about their decision. Wasn't one of the goals of

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-05 Thread Adam Kennedy
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 included limited support for 5.004 because I could, plus I have no feel for how much pain I would cause folk if I didn't. If anyone cares about this enough to do

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-05 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 12:37:28PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote: If anyone cares about this enough to do something about it, I've previously outlined a scheme for supporting statistics in CPAN in a way that covers all the bases (including #perl picking it apart for about a day). The problem

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-05 Thread David Landgren
Michael G Schwern wrote: [...] That said, here's the main differences: * No qr//. Even if you target 5.5.4 qr// still has lots of bugs. [...] Once you go through the initial pain of backporting its not too big a deal to keep things working as long as you're not doing XS. qr// is the only

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-05 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:59:53AM +0200, David Landgren wrote: I like to use constant when I can, but the further you go back in time the more brain-damaged it becomes. I think in 5.005 it only knows about scalars. No hashrefs or arrayrefs allowed. I find this is a bit of a bugger to work

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-05 Thread Adam Kennedy
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 getting rid of x.y.z

RE: what slow could be in Compress::Zlib? (was RE: 5.004_xx in the wild?)

2005-07-05 Thread Paul Marquess
From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread Adam Kennedy
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

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread Michael G Schwern
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

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread Rafael Garcia-Suarez
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

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread Ben Evans
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

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread Michael G Schwern
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

RE: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread Paul Marquess
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

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread David Landgren
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

RE: what slow could be in Compress::Zlib? (was RE: 5.004_xx in the wild?)

2005-07-04 Thread Paul Marquess
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

RE: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread Paul Marquess
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

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread James E Keenan
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

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread Michael G Schwern
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.

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread James E Keenan
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

Re: what slow could be in Compress::Zlib? (was RE: 5.004_xx in the wild?)

2005-07-04 Thread Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni
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,

Re: what slow could be in Compress::Zlib? (was RE: 5.004_xx in the wild?)

2005-07-04 Thread Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
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

Re: 5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-04 Thread steve
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]

5.004_xx in the wild?

2005-07-03 Thread Michael G Schwern
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 some old code and they were