On Wednesday February 1 2012 10:58:28 AM you wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:33:02AM +0000, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 09:34:00AM -0800, Father Chrysostomos via RT wrote: > > > OK, then let me repeat my two questions: Does anyone want to write a > > > patch for that? Should I revert Darin McBrideâs patch (b60dd40238)? > > > > In amongst POSIX::strptime(), Socket, IO::Socket::IP, etc... I possibly > > could find some time maybe. I haven't given it more than about 30 > > seconds of thought though so far. Perhaps someone could give me an > > outline of what .pm files are involved, etc... and I could mull it over? > > Unless there's any reason to do it a different way, I'd vote for: > > "Tell us where to look to get a pre-dmcbride-patch version, let somebody > provide a new patch against that, and once that's considered good revert > his patch and introduce the new one." My first accepted patch, already being reverted... :-( :-) I used the T::RL on CPAN to create my patch. That will give anyone with the appropriate tuits a starting place. Note that T::RL::Gnu and ::Perl check C<defined &Tk::DoOneEvent> to see if they should call the Tk loop. This will make things a bit more interesting when trying to avoid breaking backward compatibility. You may notice that my patch creates a dummy function just so this test succeeds, even without Tk loaded. > Although I'd be somewhat averse to allowing his patch to escape blead if > we can possibly avoid it. By moving to something even more generic, this may make it harder not to break ::Perl and ::Gnu. Not impossible, I'm sure, but a bit harder.