On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 02:15:38PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Abigail wrote: > > Too many implementation details. From a language aspect, the double copy > > is something that is irrelevant; in fact, in a new version of Perl this > > problem might no longer exist. > > I disagree that "implementation-specific" suggestions should not > be in the FAQ. People want to use perl effectively and efficiently, > and that is one need that the FAQ can address. Furthermore it is > already assumed that the documentation is specific to the > implementation with which it is bundled. And the FAQ for perl6 > doesn't exist yet. :-) I suppose, if versions of perl5 differed > significantly in these kinds of details, then one could note that > in the FAQ. "In 5.8, you can do this... but in 5.4, it would be > better to do this..."
You might disagree with me, but I raised similar objections last month when Chris suggested putting an eval trick into the FAQ - which would save memory in the current implementation of perl. The current Perl pumpking agreed with me. Hence, I object for the same reasons. This does not belong in a FAQ about the language. Abigail
