I'm not sure what you mean.
You'd have to ask yourself. I didn't know what those words meant the first time they were written. On the face, they seemed to apply equally well here as in the original locale, so I thought pointing this out might result in me getting more insight as to their meaning.
Are you suggesting that I deliberately break Windows support in my code?
Oh, is that what you meant? So you were saying that the author of Autoload::UNIVERSAL::new was deliberately breaking some case you care about? Hmm, I doubt that. It seems more likely that they unintentially broke some case that you care about and then subsequently either expressed a lack of concern or at least failed to act in demonstrating concern for that case.
You certainly appeared to be deliberately not caring whether you broke something for Win32, or for old versions of Perl (expressed repeatedly elsewhere). I suspect that Win32 has the largest number of installations of Perl of any operating system. I suspect that old versions of Perl outnumber new versions of Perl in the world. So you don't care about breaking two different slices of the pie that are (perhaps) each a majority by themselves (certainly not rare exceptions).
The perception is made much worse by you quoting "because of how painful things are", not refuting that part of the quote, and saying you don't care. So the impression is that it is too painful to get your modules to work on Windows but you don't care. Then you say that Windows users hardly ever send you patches/advice which is hard to pin down among the possibilities such as you ignnore their complaints because they don't include patches/advice or that you think that your modules aren't used much on Win32.
So now it appears that you don't care about Win32, not because of how painful it is, but because it is so easy to make your modules work on Win32 that you manage it without even trying?
So you were (originally) saying that I intentionally broke some case that you care about? I believe I was intentionally fixing something specific. But you felt the need to compare me to your nemesis because my solution failed if all of the following were true:
- The user used ActivePerl
- The user used aliased.pm
- The user used overload.pm to overload addition in the same class that they used aliased.pm on
- The user had an old version of Scalar::Util
- The user didn't have an overload.pm that defined a working Overloaded()
I doubt that qualifies as even close to a majority of the Perl installs in the world. So forgive me if I don't feel too bad about not considering it too big of a deal that a problem that causes a superset of those cases to fail was only partially fixed by my proposed solution; especially since I noted what needed to be done to fix those corner cases.
But, anyway, good luck with getting that free support from the author of AutoLoad::UNIVERSAL::new. I know that it can sometimes be hard to get free support from people who don't care about your specific situation. ;)
|