Seems to me like the usual schism between "official" and "unofficial". Matthijs van Duin has patch that gives you a JavaScript . like operator that allows you to write $foo`bar`baz instead of $foo->{bar}{baz}; it was rejected, but no one said anything about it being banished to the nether reaches of the 'net. For a while, autobox required a patch to core. Bundling patches with modules is one avenue, but the adventurous would likely rather get all of them at once rather than rebuild all of the time. Perhaps we need a http://patched.perl.org that distributes copies of the source with "community maintained" patches (in the requestor's desired combination). I'd love to see an increasely self-hosting Perl 5, along the line of David Nicol's work. I'd love to play with a lot of things, or even work on them, that aren't backwards compatiable (yet) or production ready. Most projects that fork vanish quickly. Keeping up with all of the changes in the main branch is a lot of work. Automatically and implicitly importing all changes from the main branch and allowing patches to break (hopefully to be fixed soon afterwards) is easiler. Couldn't find the link, but someone set up such a patch server for dillo (whose maintainers were notorious about ignoring patches). People wrote patches for tabs, ssl, i18n, and other things, and eventually, someone set up a server that tracked the status of the patches (build cleanly? dillion passes tests with it installed? last update?). In short, present possible future development lines as what they are -- potentially unmaintained, experimental patches -- give the idea some official status without giving any official status to any particular patch, and let the adventurous sort it out. I might have some room on slowass.net to host this ;) -scott On 0, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/6/07, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > >On 2/6/07, chromatic <chromatic@wgz.org> wrote: > >> On Tuesday 06 February 2007 02:11, demerphq wrote: > >/I/ am /not/ going to fork Perl5 anytime soon, likely never, > >certainly its not on my todo list for the next decade. I'm just > >pointing out the obvious, unless our community sorts this schism out > >thats whats going to happen. Goosen has already made a first step, and > >I know that in private rumblings others have mentioned it as well. If > >Perl5 does get forked I would think very seriously about working on > >it. And I don't think im alone. > > > >Yves > > I tried forking perl some time ago; the general plan was to write a perl > parser > in perl -- no not as a wrapper around an C<eval> like Acme::Inline::PERL, > but > as a serious implementation of the language as specified, using pure perl to > implement it. Towards dumping the resulting structures to something that > GCC > could handle; as well as having an easier-to-hack-on internals. > > I called the project "TERN" which was an abbreviation for TERN Extensible > Rewriting Notation and even gave a talk on it at YAPC St. Louis, which > absolutely > sucked due to the convention neatly lining up with the perigee of my > regularly scheduled > moodswing. > > Anyway anyone is welcome to sign up for the TERN mailing list at > http://savannah.nongnu.org/mail/?group=tern > > there is no traffic on it. > > > Basically implementing Perl 5 is a lot of work as there are a lot of > little pieces to it > that have stuck on over the years. And there really isn't a whole lot > of motivation to > do it aside from wouldn't-it-be-cool which rarely lasts more than a few > hours.Thread Previous | Thread Next