Front page | perl.cpan.workers |
Postings from April 2010
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Jan Dubois <jand@activestate.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Adam Kennedy wrote: > Meaning: there is a limit to the usefulness of playing around with file > extensions (and protocol schemes). Given that changing the file extensions > might create problems elsewhere it might simply not be worth it. I agree. But I hypothesise that the number of people with multiple Perl installations, and thus for which this problem applies, are low to negligible compared to the majority. And further, that the people who ARE in this situation are the same people that are most able to take care of the issues resulting from it. Just in Windows, Strawberry sees 10-20,000 installations a month, and I'm fairly certain you guys do 5 to 10 times that, or more. Of that huge bulk, how many are ALSO playing games with cygwin or multi-installing? I'd wager not many outside of complicated server installations. Of all the people using a Linux or BSD distros, how many install parallel Perl installs in addition to the core? Again, I'd bet that in percentage terms it's small. And the people that do are the ones that are more likely to know that they should or can run the installer explicitly. Given we can also make the extension hooks detect and defend themselves against multiple-installation situations, and that we won't LIMIT installation to these convenience measures, I can't see how the risks of gotchas to smart people doing complex things would make it not worthwhile adding optimisations for naive people doing simple things. Adam KThread Previous | Thread Next