Dave Storrs wrote: > being backwards compatible is unlikely to > _cost_ us adherents and might well gain us some. Yes, all other things being equal. But will they be? IOW: at what cost backwards compatibility? -- John Porter
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Sugalski
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Edward Peschko
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Simon Cozens
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Piers Cawley
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Glenn Linderman
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Michael G Schwern
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Ted Ashton
- Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larry's Apocalyps... Nathan Wiger
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larry's A... John Porter
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larr... Dave Storrs
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larr... John Porter
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larry's A... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larry's A... James Mastros
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 John Porter
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Michael G Schwern
- RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1 David Whipp
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Peter Scott
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Sugalski
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Peter Scott
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Andy Dougherty