Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2003
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 02:49:28AM -0800, schwern@pobox.com wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:12:36AM +0000, Tim Bunce wrote: > > > I've started cleaning up the builtin modules and I've written test scripts to > > > check that the same symbols are exported before and after clean up. Should I > > > continue? Would the changes be accepted? > > > > The current code isn't broken. It might not meet your aesthetic values, but > > it's not broken. > > I don't believe Fergal is claiming Exporter is broken, he is offering an > improvement. Not every patch need be a bug fix, we're still allowed to > add interesting new features to Perl 5. Sure. [I think I sounded more harsh than I meant.] Modules that only live inside the perl distribution can be changed in pretty much any compatible way with new releases. But for modules that have a dual life on CPAN I'd be less comfortable with adding an extra dependency. Tim.Thread Previous | Thread Next