Re: Variant perls (was Re: Working Group Proposal)

Dandy! I like this idea.  As stated in an earlier message, I'm quite
concerned about the possibility of ending up with a zillion versions of
perl, and no clue as to which ones are 'real' perl.

This proposal will at least weed out the 'cut down' versions, since they
don't meet a minimum standard.  However, it won't do much for proving
that an extended version isn't 'real' perl.  After all, the "trip tests"
won't be able to look for non-standard extensions.

At least not reliably, without deliberate inclusion of some method of
listing all the extensions currently included within the Perl Core.  I
don't think I want to do that, since a skilled developer could hide it
anyway.

However, something like that might be useful for scripters, in
conjunction with the 'require' command, to ensure that a person
attempting to run the script knows what features it requires.  (Turn it
into a useful feature, and people won't be so cranky about being
'forced' to do things.)

Andrew Greene wrote:
> 
> Perhaps we could adopt a TeX-like strategy:
> 
>   * Any executable called "perl" must be 100% conformant, standard,
>     passes the "trip tests."
> 
>   * Any modified version of perl -- whether because certain features
>     have been omitted or because certain modules are "compiled in" --
>     must be called something else. "siteperl" or "microperl" or
>     what-have-you.