RE: [code-review] Hello!

> > Try to act out your symptoms on topics where personal=20
> > preferences might be more relevant, like getting the latest=20
> > version of your favorite web browser, pop star album, or new=20
> > car model.
>
> I just think that there needs to be an driving, incentive force for=20
> people to upgrade their Perl. So /yes/ to backwards compatibility for=20
> *existing* stuff, but for new modules !?!

Isn't the fact that some modules do need newer Perls enough?
Do we have to be needlessly callous and cruel to those people who have =
no option?

I've written modules that required newer Perls, because I wanted to do =
something and couldn't figure a broader way to achieve it, and because I =
had no plans to upload to a more general audience than our server.... =
but we get moved now and then, too, and might end up one of these days =
on a machine that can't run our own legacy code without modification. =
Stupid? Hell yes, but possible? I'd say if you consider it anything less =
than at least marginally likely, then you must more likely work either =
for a small company, or a small department with a lot of leeway, or an =
exceptionally non-bureaucratic firm. Again, thank your e-gods. :)


*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity =
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, =
and/or privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination =
or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this =
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is =
prohibited.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender =
and delete the material from all computers."  113