Re: Initial LSB activities
Eric S Raymond <esr@snark.ccil.org> writes:
> OK. This is *not* the case with Python; it's been quite stable
> across the last three releases, and the language design and standard
> modules are sufficiently clean to justify an expectation that it
> will remain so.
I think the right solution is to avoid specifying anything about
python, perl, and non-POSIX scripting langauges, except perhaps a
naming scheme for the package (if we decide to specify such a thing in
a future release of LSB).
I don't think leaving Perl out of the base will mean LSB-compliant
applications won't be able to use it. Just that it's not something
we're going to muck with or require. If you use Perl, you get
whatever behavior Perl is going to give you.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd really like to concentrate on the
simple and absolutely required stuff for the next year or so. Perl is
really neither.
Dan
Reply to: