On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Curtis Jewell <[email protected]> wrote: > I just wish that we could have one module that's the best of both M::I > and M::B. M::I's basic syntax and M:B's extensibility and being in pure > perl are both things I like. Don't ask me about EU::MM! > > Module::Build::Functions, anybody? *grin* [Thinking of the module > purpose as being analogous to the differences in use between File::Spec > and File::Spec::Functions]
I believe that Adam Kennedy has been discussing something like that once configure_requires is fully supported in core, making that sort of thing easier. It really wouldn't be very hard to crib the easy style of M::I for simple M::B modules. > If M::B had easy-to-implement ShareDir support, I'd be using it for that > module instead of M::I. Patches welcome. ;-) It's really easy to write an M::B subclass and stick it in inc/. Not as easy as M::I, which magically does all the inc stuff for you. That's one of the next features I'd like to see in M::B, myself. -- David
