Re: All's fair (in) love and the sdk list

On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:20:58AM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Graham" == Graham Barr <[email protected]> writes:
>     Graham> But you decided to change the result of the discussion. It
>     Graham> is not very diplomatic to discuss something then change
>     Graham> things because you do not agree.
> 
> Not sure if you're refering to Time::*, FreezeThaw or both, so I'll
> assume both.
> 
> FreezeThaw remains on the list because a well-respected book speaks
> about it in positive tones, specificly in comparison to Storable.  If
> it comes to pass that the author of said book actually sees FreezeThaw
> & Storable as quite interchangeable then I'll remove FreezeThaw.  If
> said author still differentiates between the two them I'm inclined to
> leave both; if only to avoid the "why isn't <blah> in the SDK"
> questions.

You are going to get those questions anyway and I don't see why any module
should be included on the basis that it is in a book. I bet there are many
more modules out there that are referenced in books (good books) that have not
even been considered for the SDK.

> In the case of the Time::* modules, I originally, without checking the
> modules myself, interpreted a post on your part as sugesting that
> equivalent functionality already existed; you corrected my
> misinterpretation so I left both modules in the list.  Having since
> reviewd the modules myself, I feel that the SDK may need one but does
> not need both.

Even though they do differ in places ? Which just shows there is some
bias under some circumstances

>  I would like, however, for voices other than yours and
> mine to join this discussion before a conclusion is reached about
> which if any module to include.

Likewise but there has been a lot of silence. Mainly I suspect due to
this list does not have the diversity of users to decide on a complete
list of modules for an SDK IMO.

> Is that more reasonable?

I will hold my response to that for now.

Graham.