From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:00:14AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:36:39AM +0100, Ben Evans wrote:
> > > I would say that this cascade effect is precisely why you *should*
> > > drop 5.004 compatability. There's no excuse other than "if it ain't
> broke,
> > > don't fix it" for running such an archaic Perl. People should be
> encouraged
> > > to move to a more modern environment whenever possible.
> >
> > While I'd love it if it worked this way, more often the admins refuse to
> > upgrade in spite of losing module support and its the programmer who
> gets
> > punished. The concern is more about not breaking existing code (whether
> > warrented or not) than furthering development.
> >
> > I just had exactly this happen to a friend of mine contracting at a
> company
> > still running 5.5.3. He couldn't even convince them to install a modern
> > Perl in a separate location and leave the old code running 5.5.3.
>
> As someone whose production code is currently required to run under
> 5.5.3, I'm very grateful to module authors whose code still runs under
> that version at least. A number of modules which don't run under 5.5.3
> do with simple changes, primarily changing "our" to "use vars" and
> getting rid of x.y.z version numbers.
I get around that particular issue in my modules by doing an inplace edit of
all the perl files in the module distribution when "perl Makefile.PL" is
run. It converts "our" to "use vars" (or vice versa). Same goes with "$^W"
and "use warnings".
Paul
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
