On Nov 19, 2007 10:35 AM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Golden wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2007 9:27 PM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> David Golden wrote: > >>> So, yes, it was a crappy design decision/hack, but now we're stuck with > >>> it.
> That's the complete solution. The alternative small solution, someone > suggested, is we just ship a "perl.pm" which sets it's $VERSION to be the > current Perl version. That's the hack to make "requires: perl" "just work" > without any special casing on the part of the consumer. I think it piles a > hack on top of a hack. Personally I think that this is an incredibly elegant and clever solution. Im surprised you dislike it so much. It seems to me that if it also somehow exposed the perl build number (aka .patch number) then it would be quite useful. Just think, its backwards compatible, (it can be made into a cpan module easily) and it solves the problem nicely without changing any existing code. Its not that often you run into solutions to tricky problems like this that are that simple. Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
