David Golden said: > Perl itself, for one. I refer you to > http://www.dagolden.com/index.php/204/perl-version-number-puzzles/ for > your horror and amusement.
Those are interesting, but I'm not entirely sure how they practically relate. A module requiring version vX.Y.Z isn't likely to generate "use Foo vX.Y.Z" code! I can't even reproduce most of them. I suspect they're related to broken versions of version.pm (which questions, again, the wisdom of pinning the spec to version.pm). > The Perl community has so horribly screwed up module version numbering > that the spec just attempts to encourage a minimum level of > consistency. It can't solve all the problems. If this is all about supporting out of date Perls and toolchains, can we downgrade it to a recommendation/should rather than a must? It seems silly to declare a meta file invalid just to support some dying edge cases. On 2010.4.20 2:49 AM, Adam Kennedy wrote: >>>> I was worried that was it. That conversion should be considered, >>>> but not enshrined in the spec as a limit. > > "999 revisions ought to be enough to anyone" ♪ I got 999 revisions but I can't add one ♪ I speak from experience, limiting the version is a bad idea. http://markmail.org/message/ra4wobbbyk5nx36a http://groups.google.com/group/perl.perl5.porters/browse_thread/thread/722c95dc76480dd1/bea6e5897fcbd584?q=#bea6e5897fcbd584 -- 40. I do not have super-powers. -- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army http://skippyslist.com/list/
