It would be nice if we could use the now-ancient // operator, introduced in 5.10.
On Nov 21, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Judd Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > One of the reasons (well, the only reason, really), that I need 5.8.8 is > because that's what RHEL5 is running, and RHEL 5 is supposed to be supported > for quite a while. Maybe the policy should be that we should support Perls as > old as are in current support for major distributions, especially the ones > that are supposed to remain stable for a given timespan, like 5 years in the > case of RHEL 5. > > What specifically are you planning on introducing into the code that will > break older perls than 5.10? > > -Judd > > ____________________________ > Judd Taylor > Software Engineer > > Orbital Systems, Ltd. > 3807 Carbon Rd. > Irving, TX 75038-3415 > > (972) 915-3669 x127 > From: Craig DeForest [[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:57 AM > To: David Mertens > Cc: Chris Marshall; [email protected]; pdl-porters > Subject: Re: [Pdl-porters] [Perldl] update PDL perl version to 5.10.x > > I don't have a strong reason to push for 5.12 over 5.10. But I'm with you, > David, on the need for a policy. "Last five stable versions" seems reasonable. > > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 7:20 AM, David Mertens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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, which come with 5.10. And actually, what I really want is warmings >> 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
