Pros and cons of releasing Perl 5.20.0 as Perl 7.0.0

Re:Pros and cons of releasing Perl 5.20.0 as Perl 7.0.0 by viraptor on Wednesday February 06, 2013 @07:55PM (#5179898)

But this kind of version skip has some precedents. At least the Winamp "we messed up 3 so badly that we're going to skip a version" 5, comes to my mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pros and cons of releasing Perl 5.20.0 as Perl 7.0.0 by stevekinney on Wednesday February 06, 2013 @10:40PM (#5180393)

I'll begin with the standard disclaimer that I'm a bit out of touch with the Perl community (but that won't stop me from commenting). Technically, this has been done before with the abandonment of ECMAScript 4 in favor of skipping from ECMAScript 3 to ECMAScript 5.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pros and cons of releasing Perl 5.20.0 as Perl 7.0.0 by fosap on Wednesday February 06, 2013 @08:07PM (#5179932)

Is perl 6 messed up? I haven't had the time to look at it, but it doesn't seem to.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pros and cons of releasing Perl 5.20.0 as Perl 7.0.0 by gchpaco on Wednesday February 06, 2013 @08:22PM (#5179969)

It would have to get substantially less vapor-y to even qualify as "messed up".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pros and cons of releasing Perl 5.20.0 as Perl 7.0.0 by viraptor on Wednesday February 06, 2013 @11:00PM (#5180446)

I didn't want to imply that. It was only the reason for winamp version skipping.

[ Parent | on HN ]