[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

Re: protected.pm (more Class::Fields)

From: Gurusamy Sarathy <gsar@activestate.com>
To: andreas.koenig@anima.de (Andreas J. Koenig)
cc: Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>, Gurusamy Sarathy <gsar@activestate.com>, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@jhereg.perl.com>, Adam Turoff <adam.turoff@isinet.com>, damian@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au, perl5-porters@perl.org
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 02:46:41 -0800
Message-Id: <200001091046.CAA17800@activestate.com>

On 09 Jan 2000 11:40:54 +0100, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
>>> Maybe there ought to be some sort of a expiry date on the "experimental"
>>> stuff.  If something doesn't pass the experimental stages for a couple
>>> of major release cycles, perhaps it should be thrown out altogether.
>>> What say?
>
>I'm a bit surprised that base and fields stuff is experimental. Both
>were in 5.005_03 and I see nothing in the documentation of 5.00503
>that marks them experimental (Checked pods of base.pm, fields.pm,
>perldelta.pod). Am I blind?

L<perl5.005_03/pod/perlref.pod/"Pseudo-hashes:  Using an array as a hash">:

    WARNING:  This section describes an experimental feature.  Details may
    change without notice in future versions.

But you're right, fields.pm should have something in it as well.


Sarathy
gsar@ActiveState.com

Follow-Ups from:: andreas.koenig@anima.de (Andreas J. Koenig)

References to:: andreas.koenig@anima.de (Andreas J. Koenig)

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]