$ perl5.10.1 -e 'use 10.1' Perl v10.100.0 required--this is only v5.10.1, stopped at -e line 1. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at -e line 1. $ perl5.10.1 -e 'use v10.1' Perl v10.1.0 required--this is only v5.10.1, stopped at -e line 1. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at -e line 1.
Nope. That didn't work.
[Update]
I should add, that I would like someone to find a terser, semantic punctuation-free way to say Perl 5, release 10, update 1. Because that's what it represents, an update to "Perl 5, release 10".*
* and notice also how there is no .0 there, so by the power of Newspeak, we can eliminate the thoughtcrime of regarding .0 releases as unfit for anything, including testing with.
Hey, Nick.
I knew you are always dealing with the next Perl. But... version 10?
Re:Future
Aristotle on 2009-08-24T15:07:18
In case you are seriously wondering – people have taken to referring to Perl 5 version numbers like 5.8.9 and 5.10.1 as “Perl 5, version 8.9” or “Perl 5, version 10.1”.
And apparently, Nick is lampooning that; apparently he thinks it’s silly? (Personally I like that tentative new convention.)
Re:Future
ambs on 2009-08-24T15:48:03
I was really wondering.
A friend told me that current solution to Perl 6 taking so long, would be taking Perl 5.10.0 or Perl 5.12.0 and call it Perl 6.
The real new Perl 6 currently in development would get the sequential number of the previous in existence.
Re:Future
nicholas on 2009-08-24T16:10:51
Not silly. I agree with the intent. I don't agree with the current "solution", as I think that it has the potential to cause a new can of version number woes. As if we didn't have enough already.
… to use marketing first.
(In my opinion, this one is a good feature of marketing.pm, mind.)
