Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2011
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 04:06:38PM -0500, Todd Rinaldo wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:34 PM, David Golden wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > >> Providing a full interface to POSIX:2008 is laudable, and should be > >> available. But having it in the core doesn't in itself aid installing > >> modules, and hence contradicts the goal of a minimal core. > >> > >> Given that it would cause insane breakage to remove the current POSIX > >> module from core as it would break so much > >> > >> [not sure how to do a popularity contest for it, but I suspect that > >> POSIX::_exit() is one of the most common uses] > > > > POSIX itself is used in various places. I'm not sure how well the > > module install toolchain can do without at least some parts of it > > without some serious work. See quick-and-dirty analysis below (some > > are conditional uses, admittedly). > > > What about: > > POSIX::Tiny (core) > POSIX (HEAVY = CPAN)? I'm with Nick about POSIX being...at the very least "slushy" after all this time. I'd much rather see the API we have now stay as "POSIX" while a POSIX::20xx ends up on CPAN as a spiffier module that doesn't have the traditional perl "we won't break it or you can break our kneecaps, or at least complain on the internet" compatibility promise. Which is very much your plan, just without names that would break existing software ;) > > /me runs and ducks for cover. > --Thread Previous | Thread Next