I think that the "distribution" approach is a good way to go. I also think that there could be value in a set of "core" modules for some basic functions. The only reason to do this, however, would be to design those modules to work especially well together. These modules could follow tighter standards on how errors are reported, how logging is done, how they should be extended (plugins/subclasses), etc.
If such "core" modules were to be done in that fashion, they could serve as a positive example for the first wave of module developers and shape things to come. Of course there's still the question of what modules would belong in such a list. I think that modules for debugging, compilation and deployment, exception handling, threading, basic I/O (which includes LWP nowadays) would probably make sense. Of course one could pretty rapidly leap to DBI and SOAP, or web application modules... The line has to be drawn somewhere, though. I think the question to ask is which aspects of perl programming could benefit from being put on a (relatively) narrow path and which belong in TMTOWDI mode from day 0. (And do we want to have so many XML modules next time around, or can we benefit from blessing one approach, at least to start things off) Putting things into the core because they're convenient to have around, however, is probably the wrong thing to do. A (at least semi) separate distribution of common modules makes more sense. --Josh At 10:59 on 05/30/2006 PDT, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:09:19AM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: > : As I recall, it is Larry's wish that the standard distribution for > : Perl 6 be quite small, so that people are encouraged to use CPAN. > > Hmm, but also so that people are encouraged to form various standard > distributions, more along the lines of the Linux model. This is for > a number of reasons. The distributing organization can sell CDs or > DVDs, of course, but more importantly, can function in a localized editorial > role without tearing up the whole community over such choices. Also, > different distributions can specialize for different kinds of users. > "Here's the ISP distribution, there's the bioperl distribution." > > One thing we could do better than the Linux model is specify how > different distributions must stay compatible and interoperate with > other distributions so that you can load several of them at once. > > Larry
