Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2009
From: David Golden
October 30, 2009 07:20
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Nicholas Clark <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Maybe I missed this argument already, but do we actually break
>> anything if we bump everything up?
> That we had defined that C<no 6;> did what would logically expected, given
> the semantics of C<use 5.005;> etc.
And? Why wouldn't that still work? C<no 11;>
Do we really need to allow "Perl 5" code to say C<no 6;> to indicate
it doesn't run on "Perl 6"?
Is anyone still pretending Perl 5 is the same language as Perl 6?
They're different language and they run on different interpreters.
Let's keep "no" for Perl 5's use.
If we really need to deny Perl 6, I'm sure there are other ways to do
it with less impact on options for bumping Perl 5's version schema.