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
