Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > > As an active non-sm
"H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
> >
> > Likewise. What's wrong w
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose two simple critereon for all future module
> additions to the core:
>
> 1) It has a reasonable amount of POD documentation. At minimum it
> must have something, even if its just a NAME, SYNOPSIS and
> DESCRIPTION.
This is
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, it wasn't clear to the perl-qa folks that I'm talking about
> Perl5, not Perl6.
>
> No nonononono. Please don't drag CPAN into this particular
> conversation. I'm just trying to nail down p5p on this simple issue.
>
> Sorry for not c
I do know of a couple who are. They mentioned it on perl-5-meta.
On Wednesday 22 August 2001 21:11, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I've got 5.004_04, 5.004_05, 5.005_03, 5.6.1 and bleadperl installed
> to test against. Should I bother with 5.004? Is anyone *seriously*
> using it still?
>
>
> PS Wh
