Re: Not-completely-portable modules

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Larry W. Virden writes:
> > Even if they ARE generally portable, do we want to include the
> > "four billion" modules of say Tk, or Apache?
> 
> Let's discuss Tk when we come to it.  I'm just trying to get a
> feel for the platform-specific issue.  Application-specific will
> come up soon enough, and we'll deal with it then.

Good, them I'm not off topic. I was wondering about that.

But, generally, I feel that platform-specifics are not a problem. If so then a
lot more would be at issue than Win32::* and Tk. We wouldn't be able to include
anything unix-specific without imposing a double-standard, or anything that
didn't work on a Mac or BeOS. That would leave us with what?

"Platform specific" should be a dead issue.

There is one perl.