NeonEdge wrote on 2/21/01 4.07:
...
>sense: could p6 allow (for the
>first few versions anyway) a
>"require <6;" directive? My
...
This sounds to me like a good idea, especially if we implement some of the
other radical changes, such as implicit 'use strict' or major changes to
builtins. Person
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:05:19PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and "NeonEdge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whisper
> ed:
> | This is probably way too late, but does this make any sense: could p6 allow
> | (for the first few versions anyway) a "require <6;" directive
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:05:19PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> If they're going to have to go in and add a "require <6" already, its easier
> to just modify the #! line (and less coding for us).
Duh, <> the #! line. I'm awake now, though. ;)
Grant M.
I've gotta stop getting up before noon.
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and "NeonEdge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whisper
ed:
| This is probably way too late, but does this make any sense: could p6 allow
| (for the first few versions anyway) a "require <6;" directive?
Do you understand how the current "require #;" works? It already pretty
This is probably way too late, but does this make any sense: could p6 allow
(for the first few versions anyway) a "require <6;" directive?
My thought was that during the install process, the admin would be prompted
as to whether or not they wished to retain 'full' backward compatibility, and
if
