Re: Not-completely-portable modules

Elaine -HFB- Ashton writes:
 > Nathan Torkington [[email protected]] quoth:
 > *>
 > *>My feeling on it is that such modules should work in a *lot* of
 > *>places.  I don't feel like including four billion Win32::* modules
 > *>on the grounds that they're useful and platform-specific is okay.
 > 
 > I would tend to agree. There is no reason why someone with an Alpha should
 > have to install an SDK with Solaris::* modules, etc. Why not keep the base
 > as generic as possible? 

Hmmm.  A good point.  Maybe we really should no OS-specific modules in
"The SDK".  I do not feel particularly strongly about including
BSD::Resource.  I know it's useful, but I think having a fully
portable set of modules is much better.  On the other hand, as
somebody already mentioned, many very useful modules like Tk are not
fully portable, either.  Rats.  Creating policies is hard.

-- 
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
        # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
        # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen