Hi Shlomi On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 22:57 +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Hi Ron, > > On Sunday 20 Mar 2011 01:16:32 Ron Savage wrote: > > Hi Shlomi > > > > Let me say things in different words. > > > > Our primary goal is ensuring the future of the module, right? > > > > yes. > > > To me, this implies any of these items /might/ be jettisoned: > > > > o Pure-Perl > > o Current parser > > o Current input format > > > > So, I'd like the discussion to focus on choosing the best tools to > > support the module. > > > > Thus, I'm saying the current input format, e.g., is not driving the > > discussion, but rather the search for tools is. > > > > That in turn means that if a different parser is chosen, then changing > > the input format would be a consequence (i.e. not a driver) of that > > choice. > > Well, generally we should not break backwards compatibility if we can help > it. > If you want to re-implement the parser using a parser generator, then it's > OK, > but it should preferably pass all the tests.
I understand the pressure to main backwards compatibility. I just want to raise the issue that if there was a significantly better parser available, which was not b. c., I'd consider it. And yes, this may mean releasing new versions of the module under a different namespace. -- Ron Savage http://savage.net.au/ Ph: 0421 920 622
