At 8:23 AM -0700 7/31/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote: >On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: > >> [Pardon the tardiness--digging through old mail] >> At 3:39 PM -0400 7/22/02, Melvin Smith wrote: >> >At 12:00 PM 7/22/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: >> >>On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:21:09AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:14:15AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote: >> >>> > "Sean O'Rourke" <sorourke@cs.ucsd.edu> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > > languages/perl6/README sort of hides it, but it does say that >> >>>"If you have >> >>> > > Perl <= 5.005_03, "$a += 3" may fail to parse." I guess >>we can upgrade >> >>> > > that to "if you have < 5.6, you lose". >> >>> > >> >>> > I notice that DBI no longer supports Perl releases <5.6. >>Seems enough >> >>> > people are happy that 5.005 is obsolete. >> >>> >> >>> I am not sure I agree with that. I have been met with a lot >>of resistance >> >>> from users todo the same with my modules. Some even still want 5.004, >> >>> but thats asking too much IMO. >> >> >> >>In October 2000 I believed that 5.005 maintenance *is* important for the >> >>acceptance of perl6, and I still do now: >> > >> >I agree with this, and until there is a formal discussion and announcement >> >I'm still assuming the minimum for Parrot is 5.005 (_03). >> >> Yep. 5.005_03 is the minimum required perl version. I'd like to hold >> that for as long as possible, if for no other reason than a fair >> number of folks are holding off installing 5.6.x because of various >> issues with the original 5.6.0 release. > >Just as an aside, the nested-six-deep statement up there is no longer true >-- languages/perl6 should work equally well with 5.005_03 and 5.6.1. Really? Keen! Now if we could just kill every 5.6.0 install of perl so the assembler didn't croak on BASIC's generated assembly code... -- Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunkThread Previous | Thread Next