On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 04:17:07PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 16:04, Joshua ben Jore wrote:
It'd be nice if there were a pragma or function for use by
Devel::Cover which said just that:
cond ? ... :
cond ? ... :
cond ? ... :
can't::happen;
sub can't::happen
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 08:31:44AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
That would be the uncoverable feature, which I haven't quite finished
yet. It does just what is asked for, that is you can mark constructs as
uncoverable which means that the sense of the error is
Paul Johnson wrote:
1. Find some nice way expressing what is uncoverable. For subroutines
this is easy. For statements it is not hard. For branches it is
tricky and for conditions I'm somewhat stumped. The current
method I use is based on implementation details.
What's
On Dec 20, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Well, maybe not exactly - I can probably make good arguments for
inline
annotation.
Allow me. :)
The current scheme won't track changes to the source file well.
Using file + md5 rather than file + line helps some, but problems
