Re: 6PAN (was: Half measures all round)
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:00:13AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > |On 6/4/02 12:22 PM, David Wheeler wrote: > |> I think that if we can agree to forego backwards compatibility, we might > |> also be in a better position to set up a CP6AN with much better quality > |> control. All of the most important modules will be ported very quickly > |> (e.g., the DBI), Actually I doubt that complex extensions with lots of XS/C code will get ported "very quickly" since the work involved may be considerable. That's one of the reasons I've put so much effort into making DBI::PurePerl a viable tool. It'll automatically give people a working Perl6 DBI (for pure-perl drivers) as soon as there's a working perl5-to-perl6 translator. Tim.
Re: 6PAN (was: Half measures all round)
|On 6/4/02 12:22 PM, David Wheeler wrote: |> I think that if we can agree to forego backwards compatibility, we might |> also be in a better position to set up a CP6AN with much better quality |> control. All of the most important modules will be ported very quickly |> (e.g., the DBI), and a lot of the cruft will be left to die (at least from |> the Perl 6 perspective). | |Speaking of "CPAN for Perl 6" (or "CP6AN", or "6PAN"), what's the status of |this effort? Do we even have a vague idea of the requirements? Or does |everyone think CPAN (and module distribution/installation in general) as it |exists now it pretty much okay, and just needs some tweaks to work with Perl |6 code? I really hope that's not the case! :) ]- I think there is CPANTS initiative underway which may be will solve some of ]problems of the current CPAN... there was even a write-up on www.perl.com about it ...
