Re^5: I fear my code is unreadable

Yes, I see. It isn't your platform, it's the age of your perl installation. It appears that List::Util didn't make it into core until perl 5.7 and you're using 5.6 (and a very old version at that). You have my sympathies, but you really need to request that the version of perl should be upgraded. 5.10 just came out, and 5.8 has been available for ages...

To see when a module was added to core:

perl -MModule::CoreList -e "print Module::CoreList->first_release('Lis
+t::Util'), \"\n\""
[download]

This responds: 5.007003

Comment on Re^5: I fear my code is unreadable Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: I fear my code is unreadable by Boldra (Curate) on May 13, 2008 at 09:01 UTC
A colleague is working on a 5.10 upgrade now, but since we have a heterogeneous network of 1000+ machines, it will take a little while. And naturally, he isn't just upgrading all the perl installs, he's building a system to do further upgrades in the future. So until that's working, I have to work with 8+ year old perls :\| Thanks very much for the Module::CoreList tip! That will be /very/ useful until that upgrade is finished. I've been bitten once already by thinking something was "standard library" and then discovering it wasn't installed across all our machines. I'd gotten to the point where I was only prepared to believe something was standard if it was listed in the 1st edition Camel as such. With Module::CoreList I can check a bit more finely. - Boldra	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: I fear my code is unreadable
by Boldra (Curate) on May 13, 2008 at 09:01 UTC

Thanks very much for the Module::CoreList tip! That will be /very/ useful until that upgrade is finished.

I've been bitten once already by thinking something was "standard library" and then discovering it wasn't installed across all our machines. I'd gotten to the point where I was only prepared to believe something was standard if it was listed in the 1st edition Camel as such. With Module::CoreList I can check a bit more finely.

- Boldra

[reply]