Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:43:13PM +0200, Mark Overmeer wrote:
* Daniel Carrera (daniel.carr...@theingots.org) [090529 11:42]:
"CPAN shall not piggyback another language" -- from ZCAN.
Judging from the ZCAN page, I don't expect that uploading Ruby modules
to CPAN will go well, even if that module can be compiled to Parrot. The
ZCAN page gave good reasons for this.
Agreed: do not merge sets of unrelated data! Perl6 and Perl5 are
unrelated sets of data. The only relation is the people who use it.
I disagree.
Strongly.
CPAN is the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network.
Not the Comprehensive Perl 5 Archive Network.
I agree with Nicholas. I disagree with Mark. Though Mark may have
replied to my comment with the word "Agreed", I never said that we
should separate Perl 5 and Perl 6!!! That is Mark's idea, not mine.
As Nicholas says, CPAN is the Comprehensive *Perl* (not "Perl 5")
Archive Network. The example in my email was *Ruby*. Ruby is not Perl.
But Perl 6 is Perl.
I think that it would be a good idea to put Perl 5 and Perl 6 modules in
the same CPAN. Not only do I not want to fragment CPAN, but for at least
several years Perl 6 programs will depend heavily on Perl 5 modules. So
all those Perl 5 modules up there in CPAN right now are going to be the
first "Perl 6" modules (via "use v5").
Daniel.
