I notice that Jon Rockway updated cperl for Perl 5.10. Since I don't use emacs I'm just getting that news. However, perlfaq3 is even more out of date. Can someone with up-to-date emacs knowledge read through perlfaq3 and update anything emacs related?
I figure the vi crowd should get the same chance too. I use vi, put without the fancy macros. Rather than try to update the vi stuff myself, I figure someone who really loves vi should get a chance.
The latest perlfaq are at https://svn.perl.org/modules/perlfaq/trunk/ (as noted in perlfaq). You can send patches to me directly, or to the mailing list address listed in perlfaq.
Thanks, :)
I nominate Ovid for updating the vi (vim) stuff. His journal entries on integrating Devel::Cover/Devel::CoverX::Covered with vim macros has me practically considering switching from emacs back to vi after nearly 23 years.
Re:For the vi content...
jplindstrom on 2008-04-30T18:35:13
Um... hello?:) Re:For the vi content...
jplindstrom on 2008-04-30T18:37:50
Link to the correct anchor in the page.
Re:Better to update the original cperl-mode...
jrockway on 2008-04-30T22:11:59
Hi. We try to keep sync'd with IlyaZ, but his version control isn't public and I can't read his mind. Better to have something than nothing, even if you contend that the original emacs is a fork of the original emacs:P Re:Better to update the original cperl-mode...
jand on 2008-05-01T03:36:26
Yes, something is better than nothing, and I do appreciate that you put in the effort to get Perl 5.10 support into cperl-mode. I understand that Ilya is not always easy to work with, so I don't know if he rejected applying any patches you may have made against his version.As to why I consider the RMS version a fork, just try to get the change history comments from Ilya's version into the RMS version and see what happens...
However, I just did a diff between the 5.23 versions from Ilya and RMS and they seemed much more similar feature-wise now than they used to be, so maybe this isn't really a big issue anymore.
