> "Bryan" == Bryan C Warnock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bryan> Using Multiple Versions Of The Same Module In One Program
Bryan> There are a lot of reasons why this isn't a good idea, or even
Bryan> possible in places. Non-Perl code on the backend, for
Bryan> instance, will probably prevent
At 10:59 AM 7/31/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This came up on comp.lang.perl.misc once, and Ilya Z. then wrote, IIRC,
> > that there's no reason why the DLL (if I may call it this way) should
> > have a name identical to the module name. His example
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This came up on comp.lang.perl.misc once, and Ilya Z. then wrote, IIRC,
> that there's no reason why the DLL (if I may call it this way) should
> have a name identical to the module name. His example was that on his
> port, for OS/2, he added a (machine gen
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 07:24:45 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>For example, with simple file names, it's impossible to run a perl 5.005
>and a perl 5.6 both using XML::Parser, at the same time.
It's also impossible, on Win32, to use XML::Parser and (an XS version
of) HTML::Parser at the same time, beca
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 22:32:54 -0400 (EDT), Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>> When you actually use a module, the simple name (like IO) will be
>> internally expanded out to the three value thing. So if you have two
>> modules that each use a different version of the
At 10:32 PM 7/30/2001 -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > When you actually use a module, the simple name (like IO) will be
> > internally expanded out to the three value thing. So if you have two
> > modules that each use a different version of the same module
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> When you actually use a module, the simple name (like IO) will be
> internally expanded out to the three value thing. So if you have two
> modules that each use a different version of the same module, they won't
> interact because each will be dealing wi
Some random thoughts on versions:
1.> One should not be able to install Alpha and Beta modules into the
standard library path without SPECIFICALLY indicating it (--INSTALLBETA). If
the option isn't given, then it installs the module in ./blib/ ('use blib').
2.> 'use strict' and '-w' should
On Monday 30 July 2001 07:07 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> FWIW, the interpreter will treat the following three things (Barring
> changes from Larry) as composing a unique identifier:
>
> Module Name
> Author
> Version
>
I originally said I thought choosing by author to be a bad choice.
At 12:48 PM 7/29/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>I've been contemplating this off and on for a while now, but the lack
>of a Grand Unified Theory of Module Versioning has always led me to
>shelve whatever thoughts I may have had to the back of my mind - or to
>/dev/null. There was a lot of p
I've been contemplating this off and on for a while now, but the lack
of a Grand Unified Theory of Module Versioning has always led me to
shelve whatever thoughts I may have had to the back of my mind - or to
/dev/null. There was a lot of peripheral discussion, however, here at
TPC, and a lot of
On 7/29/01 12:48 PM, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Let's just arbitrarily assume that the
> major number of the version is equivalent to that version of the API.
> (In other words, Foo 1.05 gives us a promise that it uses the same API
> as 1.02 and 1.08. Foo 2.01 would use a different (however slight
12 matches
Mail list logo
