| Newsgroups |
perl.bootstrap |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
In message <[email protected]>, Dan Su
galski writes:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>
>> I'll just say that "I disagree". I don't think you should EVER have
>> to recompile your perl binary to get something a program author
>> thought would be available in THEIR perl binary.
>
>I strongly disagree as well. Maybe (*maybe*) particular backends will have
>well-defined optional pieces missing (like, say, dynaloading, or the
>lexer), but that's as far as I'd like to go.
<AOL>Me too</AOL>.
We wouldn't want to go back to the pre-modular Apache or kernel, do
we? Or maybe recompile Java to be able to use inner classes? Recompile
everything just to get one feature in, then rewrite some modules because
they were written with a different feature set of Perl in mind, etc. It
just opens up a can of worms.
Now if certain features could be implemented as modules, like overriding
(for example) 'open' to accept URLs, that'd be different. Or if you could
restrict certain things using pragmas. If the module isn't available on
a platform (Palm, etc.), then you can't use that feature on that platform.
Marcel