[perl #72710] perl.pod description of perl is horribly dated

On Thu Feb 25 16:02:52 2010, xdaveg@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@pobox.com>
> wrote:
> >> I do think there will be some debate over what exactly it will say,
> >> but when 5.12 is out the door that's probably the right time for
> that
> >> discussion.
> >
> > Quite a lot of thought when into the wording of
> http://www.perl.org/about.html
> >
> > There might be some useful chunks to borrow.
> 
> Which is almost exactly what the RT ticket says.
> 
> I think *after* 5.12 ships, *then* someone can bring in the text of
> that page as a starting point for discussion.
> 
> From my recent conversation with Larry about changing the "abstract"
> on the first line of the man page, his stipulation about changes was
> that both historical back-ronyms for PERL be preserved to humorous
> effect.  So someone with a sense humor will have to figure out how to
> integrate that with the perl.org text.
> 
> (And my sense of humor is about shot, these days, so that rules me
> out.)

Does commit 72033c14 address this?


-- 

Father Chrysostomos


---
via perlbug:  queue: perl5 status: open
https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=72710

• [perl #72710] perl.pod description of perl is horribly dated by Father Chrysostomos via RT
• Re: [perl #72710] perl.pod description of perl is horribly dated by David Golden