On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: > [Pardon the tardiness--digging through old mail] > At 3:39 PM -0400 7/22/02, Melvin Smith wrote: > >At 12:00 PM 7/22/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > >>On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:21:09AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:14:15AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote: > >>> > "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > languages/perl6/README sort of hides it, but it does say that > >>>"If you have > >>> > > Perl <= 5.005_03, "$a += 3" may fail to parse." I guess we can upgrade > >>> > > that to "if you have < 5.6, you lose". > >>> > > >>> > I notice that DBI no longer supports Perl releases <5.6. Seems enough > >>> > people are happy that 5.005 is obsolete. > >>> > >>> I am not sure I agree with that. I have been met with a lot of resistance > >>> from users todo the same with my modules. Some even still want 5.004, > >>> but thats asking too much IMO. > >> > >>In October 2000 I believed that 5.005 maintenance *is* important for the > >>acceptance of perl6, and I still do now: > > > >I agree with this, and until there is a formal discussion and announcement > >I'm still assuming the minimum for Parrot is 5.005 (_03). > > Yep. 5.005_03 is the minimum required perl version. I'd like to hold > that for as long as possible, if for no other reason than a fair > number of folks are holding off installing 5.6.x because of various > issues with the original 5.6.0 release.
Just as an aside, the nested-six-deep statement up there is no longer true -- languages/perl6 should work equally well with 5.005_03 and 5.6.1. /s
