That said, I think it might be nice to provide a clear dependency policy. For example, we could promise to support all default Perls on the latest versions of Cygwin, Strawberry, Active Perl, Mac OSX, Debian stable, Centos, and Fedora. Note that some of those---namely Centos and Debian stable---may be a bit conservative and we could instead provide instructions or even install scripts that would install perlbrew and a newer version of Perl.
Or, we could just promise to work on the *five* latest stable versions of Perl (which, at the moment, would be 5.18, 5.16, 5.14, 5.12, and 5.10), and therefore (try to) nudge Cygwin to move along. If we keep working with the oldest Perl, then the distributors have no need to move forward, right? David On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:10 AM, David Mertens <[email protected]>wrote: > I don't see a need to move to 5.12. I think I'll eventually advocate for > that because of the lexical keyword API, but I don't have anything for that > yet and I think that Zefram typically writes CPAN modules which provide the > same C interfaces for older Perls. > > The biggest Perl feature I would like to see is user-level pragmatic > modules <http://perldoc.perl.org/perlpragma.html>, which come with 5.10. > And actually, what I really want is warmings from a > module<http://perldoc.perl.org/perllexwarn.html#Reporting-Warnings-from-a-Module>. > AFAICT, that's been available since 5.6, so I suppose I/we could have > started on that a long time ago. Heh. > > David > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Chris Marshall <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Without detailed information on who would be affected >> by a change in the required/supported version of perl, >> I would prefer to minimize disruption for PDL users. >> For example, I do know that the older cygwin releases >> used perl 5.10.x and a jump to 5.12 could make them >> not able to use PDL. >> >> That said, if there is a specific need that could be >> addressed by jumping to 5.12.x, that could justify >> the change. Anything in mind---I haven't seen anything >> myself. >> >> All is not bad, if we go to 5.10 support, we can finally >> use 'say' ... :-) >> >> --Chris >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Craig DeForest >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Why not bump to 5.12? >> > >> > (mobile) >> > >> > >> > On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:42 AM, Chris Marshall <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> I propose moving to perl 5.10.x as the officially >> >> supported perl version for general PDL development, >> >> effective immediately. >> >> >> >> I don't expect this to affect the legacy PDL users >> >> as they often are using PDL versions back as far >> >> as 2.4.3. >> >> >> >> Comment, discussion, votes? >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PDL-porters mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/pdl-porters >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Perldl mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl >> > > > > -- > "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. > Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, > by definition, not smart enough to debug it." -- Brian Kernighan > -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." -- Brian Kernighan
_______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
