Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2004
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 18:15, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Version incompatibilities of the type you're talking about don't become
> important until many versions down the road, if ever at all, at which
> point they've presumably figured it out themselves.
Schwern said this? Schwern? Schwern is presuming that people in general
are capable of figuring something out for themselves? After even
Dr. Conway failed to add a VERSION method that would throws
error on attempts to include the ealier, incompatible version of
Parse::RecDescent? The details are subtle and I cannot explain them,
here's Fergal Daly fro module authors:
> To see why the current situation is most definitely broken, take the
> example of Parse::RecDescent again. 1.90 changed in a fundamental way.
> Using the current system, what should the author have done? Calling it
> 2.0 would be no good because
>
> use Parse::RecDescent 1.84;
>
> works fine with 2.0 and CPAN.pm would download 2.0 if you told it you
> need at least 1.84.
I think that four or five lines are all that are needed to make
module authors mindful of version incompatbility approaches from the getgo.
Adding
# sub VERSION{
# $_[1] < 2.3 and die <<EOF;
# version 2.3 and later releases of Foo::Bar take an
# array-reference as the eighth argument to baz()
# EOF
# };
to the h2xs-created template might help.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next