At 8:23 AM -0700 7/31/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>> [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 people are happy that 5.005 is obsolete.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.
>
>Just as an aside, the nested-six-deep statement up there is no longer true
>-- languages/perl6 should work equally well with 5.005_03 and 5.6.1.
Really? Keen! Now if we could just kill every 5.6.0 install of perl
so the assembler didn't croak on BASIC's generated assembly code...
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
