Re^2: Request for link shortcut: CPAN Dependencies

So? Likewise linking to a user makes his writeups only one click away, we still have the [by://] shortcut.

Asking the other way: is there any reason not to implement [dep://] or [deps://] some brave soul contributed code and documentation?

Comment on Re^2: Request for link shortcut: CPAN Dependencies Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Request for link shortcut: CPAN Dependencies by jdporter (Paladin) on Sep 10, 2008 at 11:59 UTC
Good question. I don't know how the gods feel about it, but I personally believe that an unrestrained proliferation of shortcut types is not in our best interest; and a request for one from a single user isn't, by itself, sufficient justification for it, precedents not withstanding. we still have the `[by://]` shortcut Yeah.... I would have cast my (moot) vote against that too, probably. (Although it sounds rather hypocritical of me to say that, since I wrote the patch which implemented the `[by://]` scheme...) Between the mind which plans and the hands which build, there must be a mediator... and this mediator must be the heart.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Request for link shortcut: CPAN Dependencies
by jdporter (Paladin) on Sep 10, 2008 at 11:59 UTC

Good question. I don't know how the gods feel about it, but I personally believe that an unrestrained proliferation of shortcut types is not in our best interest; and a request for one from a single user isn't, by itself, sufficient justification for it, precedents not withstanding.

we still have the [by://] shortcut

Yeah.... I would have cast my (moot) vote against that too, probably. (Although it sounds rather hypocritical of me to say that, since I wrote the patch which implemented the [by://] scheme...)

Between the mind which plans and the hands which build, there must be a mediator... and this mediator must be the heart.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]