Given that Perl 5 internals post 5.004 caused the need for a rewrite
anyway, I'd imagine that this would be a particularly horrid idea. The
Perl 5 path is almost dead: adventurers and Win32 users are the vast
majority using it at all. Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have
completely
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, David Grove wrote:
The Perl 5 path is almost dead: adventurers and Win32 users are the
vast majority using it at all.
Since when?
Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have completely rejected
5.6, as I discovered last night, and I'd imagine that there are more.
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 08:23 PM 4/13/2001 -0700, jc vazquez wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Dave Storrs wrote:
...
We could then just add a -7 flag.
Or, just use:
#!/usr/bin/perl6
To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why? We don't ask this of any other compiler, so why ask it of perl?
(You won't find this in a C, or Fortran, or Ada compiler...)
Yes, but my compiled C binaries in /usr/bin don't break when I upgrade
gcc. A binary is largely independent of its compiler
John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Unless you can get at every single one of those and add a '-M5' switch,
then they aren't going to work. Which could be very bad indeed.
The analogous situation with p4-p5 wasn't so bad. People just kept
their p4 binaries around for
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, David Grove wrote:
Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have
completely rejected 5.6, as I discovered last night,
This is quite unfair. Sun has supported perl nicely and Sun employees
have actively contributed to 5.6.0 and beyond. That
