Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation

Paul LeoNerd Evans <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote
   on Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:18:38 GMT:

>On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:14:58PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
>> Sounds like you are in a fine position to provide a documentation patch.

>Actually while we're on it, could we deprecate the whole thing and
>wholesale point people at IO::Socket::IP instead? The latter is a dropin
>replacement of IO::Socket::INET that can also talk IPv6 too.

That sounds like a really bad idea.

Do you realize how much existing code there is out there using 
IP::Socket::INET that you would casually deprecate?  ****LOTS****

Think of programs that people have installed because they were
part of some package they installed.  What are those people
supposed to do if you go deprecating IO::Socket::INET ?

--tom

• IO::Socket::INET documentation by Brad Doty
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Eric Brine
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by demerphq
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Paul LeoNerd Evans
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Tom Christiansen
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Leon Timmermans
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Paul LeoNerd Evans
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Leon Timmermans
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Paul LeoNerd Evans
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Graham Barr
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Aristotle Pagaltzis
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Paul LeoNerd Evans
• Re: IO::Socket::INET documentation by Ricardo Signes