(Not a reply to you personally, Ricardo).

I have said what I wanted to say, and, as usual, got about 80% useless
responses by people who didn't even bother to read through the material, and
about 20% responses that were trying to engange the argument. I wish to thank

Those replies have made it clear to me that backwards compatibility doesn't
have the meaning it has in other parts of IT, that it doesn't have a high
priority (feelings are enough to break it), that the dislike of a feature is
enough to break it, and that making up phony reasons is likewise enough to
rationale a breakage.

I don't have anything to add, and I feel that I simply have to disagree
with this policy, and further arguing will not sway the obvious majority
opinion of the (verbal part of) p5p. Bakcwars comaptibility RIP.

I will therefore not reply further is this thread - if you really really
think that I can provide some information that I haven't provided already,
feel free to ping me and I will decide whether thats the case, otherwise,
just refer to my earlier mails.

If ricardo wants my patch suggestion for perlpolicy, I will of course
provide one with "nice" language that reflects what ricardo and others
have said. Anything is better than the current state, which is completely
misleading, although in my opinion it describes the wodnerful state of
perl in the past, which had no "use version" feature but still managed to
provide less breakage while providing features that are still with us, as
opposed to features thta mostly will be removed a few releases later, or
are not even useful even if the were stable.

                 The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
       -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
       ----==-- _ generation
       ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
       --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schmorp@schmorp.de
       -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase