Re^3: poll ideas quest 2023 [Reasonable 'use VERSION' for new CPAN modules]

[kcott]

I don't see how this relates to the poll idea.

Did you want a change to the options (or some other aspect of the poll idea)?

If this idea is accepted (and published) as an actual poll, your post looks more like an explanation of your voting choice in that poll.

I read what you wrote several times. Am I missing something?

[NERDVANA]

I guess the points I was raising could be summed up as
• 5.20 should be included
• actually 5.20 is sufficient for (basic use of) subroutine signatures, you don't need to depend on 5.36 for that (regarding the comment on 5.36 poll option)
• do you think anyone will cast a serious vote for less than 5.8?

And the question on my mind:

• If I target 5.8 but increase the version any time I *need* a feature from a later perl, am I "Dynamic" or "5.8" or "Other"?

[kcott]

[Note: Between you posting your response (to which I'm replying) and me posting this reply, I changed the "5.18" option. Details in the Updates: list of the "original idea".]

I picked a range of versions from almost the earliest to almost the latest. I guessed at what might be chosen such that the poll histogram gave a meaningful result. As I see it, the main point of the poll idea is to tailor the choices based on feedback, prior to the actual poll being published.

I ended up with eight versions which I believe gives suitable coverage. I didn't think listing every base version (i.e. either 5.00[0-5] or 5.x.0 where x >= 6) would have been a good move, or even allowed by the pollsters; similarly, listing only a few versions would not have given a meaningful histogram result.

The short, parenthesised comment after each version is, as I stated, a "potential reason" for making that choice. It's not intended as the main reason, nor does it need to factor into a user's decision at all.

I'm more than happy to make changes (additions or deletions) to the list of options. This could be the result of a strong argument or a consensus of opinion. I'm unlikely to add a version because it introduces an experimental feature; I'd need a better reason.

• lexical_subs — experimental in 5.18 (perl5180delta: Lexical subroutines); stable in 5.26 (perl5260delta: Lexical subroutines are no longer experimental).
• signatures — experimental in 5.20 (perl5200delta: Experimental Subroutine signatures); stable in 5.36 (perl5360delta: use v5.36). Note this extract (with my emphasis): "Introduced in Perl version 5.20.0, and modified several times since, the subroutine signatures feature is now no longer considered experimental.".

I agree with ++hippo's comments regarding your last two dot points.

[NERDVANA]

similarly, listing only a few versions would not have given a meaningful histogram result.

Well, in this case, the histogram should probably be considered cumulative. Rather than "poll the audience for the right answer" this is more like "poll the audience and calculate the median".

Regardless, I don't really have strong feelings about it, I was just providing my perspective in case it mattered to your decisions.

[hippo]

do you think anyone will cast a serious vote for less than 5.8?

Isn't it the point of such polls to determine things like this? I think that's a very valid and potentially informative option.

If I target 5.8 but increase the version any time I *need* a feature from a later perl, am I "Dynamic" or "5.8" or "Other"?

If you target 5.8 then the answer is 5.8.