[perl #120808] perlsource.pod: Misleading discussion of what should go into ext/

On Mon Dec 16 19:24:18 2013, jkeen@verizon.net wrote:
> It seems to me that the 7 non-XS using libraries under ext/ could just 
> as easily be described as "not yet [having] been released separately on 
> CPAN" -- which would mean that they would fit better under dist/ than ext/.

At least to me, the main distinction between dist and ext is that code under dist needs to work with older versions, whereas we can do whatever we like (use new shiny features) with ext.  Maybe that could be incorporated into a new description for ext.

-- 

Father Chrysostomos


---
via perlbug:  queue: perl5 status: new
https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=120808

• [perl #120808] perlsource.pod: Misleading discussion of what should go into ext/ by Tony Cook via RT
• Re: [perl #120808] perlsource.pod: Misleading discussion of whatshould go into ext/ by Ricardo Signes
• Re: [perl #120808] perlsource.pod: Misleading discussion of whatshould go into ext/ by James E Keenan
• [perl #120808] perlsource.pod: Misleading discussion of what should go into ext/ by bulk88 via RT
• [perl #120808] perlsource.pod: Misleading discussion of what should go into ext/ by Father Chrysostomos via RT
• [perl #120808] perlsource.pod: Misleading discussion of what should go into ext/ by James E Keenan