Re^3: Back to the __future_

What's wrong with:

use 5.18;
no 5.22;
[download]

which would mean "use any release after 5.18, but not 5.22 or higher".

Comment on Re^3: Back to the __future__ Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Back to the __future__ by Tux (Canon) on Aug 19, 2011 at 14:58 UTC
Help. /me has a hard time parsing that. With Jesse's proposal that would render the second statement useless, as the first already states that you want it the way it is for 5.18. Nothing wrong with that. But in that proposal, you (as a programmer, not as author here) ignore all the stuff that was released after 5.18 so `no 5.20;` is useless as you already said so. What I was looking for is about what Corion said. I need at least version X (because an important bug was fixed or some new (at that time) killer feature was being introduced (like Unicode 6.0 in 5.14.1) but I trust perl to have not fucked up in later releases. That is how I always interpreted the `use v5.12;` syntax. Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Back to the __future__
by Tux (Canon) on Aug 19, 2011 at 14:58 UTC

Help. /me has a hard time parsing that. With Jesse's proposal that would render the second statement useless, as the first already states that you want it the way it is for 5.18. Nothing wrong with that. But in that proposal, you (as a programmer, not as author here) ignore all the stuff that was released after 5.18 so no 5.20; is useless as you already said so.

What I was looking for is about what Corion said. I need at least version X (because an important bug was fixed or some new (at that time) killer feature was being introduced (like Unicode 6.0 in 5.14.1) but I trust perl to have not fucked up in later releases. That is how I always interpreted the use v5.12; syntax.

Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]