Mailing List Archive

require 5.001; # really requires 5.001m
I've been seeing the subject line in a number of modules recently. Is
there any way:
1. require could be taught to recognize "unofficial" letter-patches?
2. PATCHLEVEL in Config.pm could be taught to recognize them?
3. (skating out onto thinner ice) release numbers could roll over
-- that is, use a number instead of an unofficial patch letter -- with
slightly greater frequency? (It seems like 5.001e and 5.001m have been de
facto releases, based on the number of messages I've seen that begin,
"First, upgrade to 5.001m. Then...".)

To be clear, I don't intend #3 to mean, "Work faster!" Instead, my
suggestion is that the version numbers accessible through require are not
keeping up with the speed of the work that is being done, and module
authors are "comment"-ing on that fact.

This came to mind as I found myself writing '#really requires 5.001m', and
wondering if there isn't some way to return a more meaningful error message
if 'm' isn't there. This is particularly a problem for modules, which the
user didn't write and maybe didn't even install. '$version = `perl -v`;'
doesn't seem like a great solution -- does another one exist?

M. Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
Re: require 5.001; # really requires 5.001m [ In reply to ]
I've argued secretly in my mind that 5.0 should become 5.1 whenever
*any* external features changed, and that 5.001 should simply be a
bugfix release.

There hasn't been a perl release that incremented the minor number
yet. And I can't imagine 10 of those before we start calling it Perl
6 anyway. :-)

Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying
Email: <merlyn@stonehenge.com> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@ora.com)
Web: <A HREF="http://www.teleport.com/~merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>
Quote: "I'm telling you, if I could have five lines in my .sig, I would!" -- me
Re: require 5.001; # really requires 5.001m [ In reply to ]
As soon as we get 5.002 out, we'll crank the official numbers faster,
rather than using letters. The whiplash induced by this should cause
fewer problems than are solved by not doing it. Or something like that...

Larry
Re: require 5.001; # really requires 5.001m [ In reply to ]
: I've argued secretly in my mind that 5.0 should become 5.1 whenever
: *any* external features changed, and that 5.001 should simply be a
: bugfix release.

I've thought about doing that instead of 5.002, but I can just imagine
the verbal confusion of trying to move from 5.001 to 5.1.

And many bug fixes *are* external features if you squint. Going the
other way, you could count function prototypes as a bug fix. It gets all
fuzzy in the middle.

: There hasn't been a perl release that incremented the minor number
: yet. And I can't imagine 10 of those before we start calling it Perl
: 6 anyway. :-)

True enough. We'll probably start calling it Perl 6 when the Perl 5 Camel
comes out...

Larry