develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2013

RE: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
February 6, 2013 17:55
RE: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?
Message ID:
> From: Ovid 
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:07 PM, demerphq wrote:
> > I think this is a sane solution. Make it clear that Perl 5.14.2 is
> > actually Perl5 v14.2, which for all intents and purposes is the case. name was invented for a reason,
maybe Perl5 <-> PerlS ?
PerlS v16.2
"S" looks like 5 - its like de-hackerization of Perl5, although l33t h4x0r
translator thinks 'S' is more like 2, not 5 :(

(I do not really like this idea though, so nevermind :) )

> I've been responding privately to a couple of folks to avoid 
> making too many waves, but since this proposal is coming up a 
> few times: I think we need to get rid of "5". That's the 
> conceptual issue that people have and that they've hammered 
> me with at FOSDEM, Linux Conf, OSCON and elsewhere. While I 
> agree that "Perl5 v14.2" is better than what we currently 
> have, I would love to see us bold enough to ditch the "5" 
> altogether. Plenty of confusion would go away.

vouz avez reason.

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About