On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:57:18 +0200, Hakim Cassimally wrote:
On 23/06/07, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 11:07:35 Chas Owens wrote:
Please, god, no. Or at least make two distributions: Bare Perl 6 and
Perl 6. Many companies have a Only Core Perl policy. They refuse
On 6/25/07, Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will just voice my support for putting best-of-breed modules for very
common tasks (CGI, DBI for sure) in the core.
Of course, then you get the disadvantage that most users will see new
versions of those modules as often (or seldom, as it
How about a Bundle::Common?
Streamline both the core and the inclusion of the most commonly used
modules? The core does include the CPAN module, right?
Personally, I *prefer* grabbing what I need piecemeal, but I understand
making it easy if possible
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hakim Cassimally skribis 2007-06-25 9:57 (+0200):
Releasing a language without a useful, easily installable library bundle
could quite reasonably be construed as a stupid business practice.
A useful, easily installable library bundle does not have to be in the
core distribution.
Debian
David Green wrote:
(Unless I'm missing something, which is always possible; you can put
a piece of POD geographically next to a Perl declaration, but I'm not
sure that's unambiguous enough. Hm, why not? POD doesn't know
what's going on around it, but Perl does, and could say, I've just
On Monday 25 June 2007 00:57:18 Hakim Cassimally wrote:
Releasing a language without a useful, easily installable library bundle
could quite reasonably be construed as a stupid business practice.
Of course. Yet some dozen years later, the argument for keeping interfaces
such as File::Find
