[Pardon the tardiness--digging through old mail]
At 3:39 PM -0400 7/22/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 12:00 PM 7/22/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>>On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:21:09AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:14:15AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote:
>>> > "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > languages/perl6/README sort of hides it, but it does say that
>>>"If you have
>>> > > Perl <= 5.005_03, "$a += 3" may fail to parse." I guess we can upgrade
>>> > > that to "if you have < 5.6, you lose".
>>> >
>>> > I notice that DBI no longer supports Perl releases <5.6. Seems enough
>>> > people are happy that 5.005 is obsolete.
>>>
>>> I am not sure I agree with that. I have been met with a lot of resistance
>>> from users todo the same with my modules. Some even still want 5.004,
>>> but thats asking too much IMO.
>>
>>In October 2000 I believed that 5.005 maintenance *is* important for the
>>acceptance of perl6, and I still do now:
>
>I agree with this, and until there is a formal discussion and announcement
>I'm still assuming the minimum for Parrot is 5.005 (_03).
Yep. 5.005_03 is the minimum required perl version. I'd like to hold
that for as long as possible, if for no other reason than a fair
number of folks are holding off installing 5.6.x because of various
issues with the original 5.6.0 release.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
