Several reasons.

• Schwern has his hands full these days and non-essential stuff is getting (appropriately) put on the back burner. (I say this based on email exchanges with him after I identified a possible off-by-one bug in Sub::Uplevel some weeks ago).
• File::pushd uses a different interface that doesn't rely on manipulating automatically-exported, tied, global variables. (Aren't those anti-patterns? Shouldn't we be discouraging their use?) From that perspective, I'd argue my module brings something new to the table rather than just being a fix to an old module.
• The broken functionality in File::chdir has to do with using @CWD to represent separated components of a directory and changing directories by pushing/popping the array. This breaks on Win32 due to the existence of the volume (e.g. C:\ ). It wasn't just broken -- it was never written to be portable in the first place. None of this functionality was relevant to what I needed, but it meant the module wasn't available via PPM, which I try to stick with for my Win32 perl. It was faster to code up and release a more narrowly targeted module (including a test suite) than to unravel getting the right behavior in File::chdir. (Which I did pull down and examine to see if I could manage a quick fix before I even started.)

I think your standards on your home node about "needless reimplementation" are needlessly high.

I think your standards on your home node about "needless reimplementation" are needlessly high.

Not at all. You satisfied my curiousity entirely. I ask such a question because I want to know, and because sometimes it reveals things to the addressee as well.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

by your reasoning, we should also have one language, since now we have confusion of the right tool to use. we should also drive the same cars and what not. it's competition and evolution. bad/old/wrong things die out, good/new/right things live on. tmtowtdi

save {sigh} us {sigh} your {sigh} emotional {sigh} distress. you would think that someone who would be considered a teacher would be a little more patient with others much less the entire community.

While some would consider responding to Anonymous Monk akin to responding to a known troll, I would assure you that I'm not fighting a non-existent boogeyman here. I have clients that say "Why do we have implementations X, Y, and Z of a given problem?" and therefore I know that marketplace confusion does exist when things get forked.

Do not try to reduce this argument through taking it to an extreme. If there's a fork, it should be justified. The justifications were shown, so I'm happy, and moving on. You should do the same.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

that's not confusion. that's ignorance. you weigh the pros and cons for systems, components and whatever. after all, why do we have perl4, 5 and soon 6? all these different versions are sooooo confusing. there are actual benefits to using one system over another?

afraid to admit you are even in the least bit hasty, or you are the least bit wrong, yet ready to place blame and point fingers. your reply just confirms a guilty mind