Given that Perl 5 internals post 5.004 caused the need for a rewrite
anyway, I'd imagine that this would be a particularly horrid idea. The
Perl 5 path is almost dead: adventurers and Win32 users are the vast
majority using it at all. Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have
completely rej
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, David Grove wrote:
> The Perl 5 path is almost dead: adventurers and Win32 users are the
> vast majority using it at all.
Since when?
> Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have completely rejected
> 5.6, as I discovered last night, and I'd imagine that there are mor
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 08:23 PM 4/13/2001 -0700, jc vazquez wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > We could then just add a -7 flag.
> > >
> > > Or, just use:
> > >
> > > #!/usr/bin/perl6
> > >
> >
> >To solve this versioning issue, is there
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why? We don't ask this of any other compiler, so why ask it of perl?
> (You won't find this in a C, or Fortran, or Ada compiler...)
Yes, but my compiled C binaries in /usr/bin don't break when I upgrade
gcc. A binary is largely independent of its compil
Piers Cawley wrote:
> Unless
> you can get at every single one of those and add a '-M5' switch, then
> they aren't going to work. Which could be very bad indeed.
The analogous situation with p4->p5 wasn't so bad.
People just kept their p4 binaries around for running
those old scripts. No biggie.
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Unless you can get at every single one of those and add a '-M5' switch,
>> then they aren't going to work. Which could be very bad indeed.
> The analogous situation with p4->p5 wasn't so bad. People just kept
> their p4 binaries a
On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 05:15:51PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> The analogous situation with p4->p5 wasn't so bad.
> People just kept their p4 binaries around for running
> those old scripts. No biggie.
Uggg. Do you remember how long it took FreeBSD to change
/usr/bin/perl from perl4 to perl5?
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, David Grove wrote:
> Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have
> completely rejected 5.6, as I discovered last night,
This is quite unfair. Sun has supported perl nicely and Sun employees
have actively contributed to 5.6.0 and beyond. That Sola
