You can't really do -c "use Module.pm" because of line numbers. I think the problem is that we do a -C on a file without filling %INC properly, so it is actually two different files being loaded.
I think this can be fixed. Adam On 14 March 2012 05:48, Rob Messer <rmes...@intellisurvey.com> wrote: > Gabor, > > Thanks for your reply. You're right, I did mean "subroutine redefined". > > Even though it wouldn't be perfect, I do think it would be better if Padre > did something like "perl -c -e "use Module.pm"' to syntax check .pm files. > It would reduce some superfluous warnings and make it closer to accurate. > After all, the point of the syntax checker is to tell you if your scripts and > modules have syntax errors, not to display "subroutine redefined" warnings > for things that are defined only once. If the scripts and modules run > without syntax errors or warnings, then why should Padre show errors? It's > just distracting and greatly reduces the value of syntax checking. Of > course, this is really perhaps a problem with perl -c and not with Padre, but > if Padre can make developers' lives easier then it should do so. > > As to your suggestion that it is bad design to have circular "use" lines -- > that is really beside the point. In some cases it is perfectly valid that > module A needs to use module B, and vice versa, and it does not necessarily > mean that things evolved without a design. There are ways around it of > course, but if it isn't a syntax error when running, it ideally shouldn't be > reported as a syntax error by the Padre IDE. > > So it is a minor thing in the scheme of things, but it would be easy enough > for Padre to detect .pm files and handle syntax checking slightly differently > for them, so in my opinion it would be worth doing. Regards, > > Rob > >> I guess you meant "Subroutine redefined" there as it says in the >> PerlMonks post. Let us know if not. >> >> I see the discussion there and I don't think Padre could provide >> anything else than what was recommended in that post. Well, Padre >> could be taught to hide specific warnings for specific files but I >> don't think it supports this currently. >> >> OTOH I am surprised no one on Perl Monks started to tell you that >> circular loading of modules is not good. >> It points to some bad design of the code. Actually such circular >> loading comes up when the code just evolved without specific design. >> So maybe instead of hiding this warning a better approach would be to >> ensure you have no circular loads in your code. >> >> It would also make it easier to test it. >> >> regards >> Gabor > _______________________________________________ > Padre-dev mailing list > Padre-dev@perlide.org > http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev _______________________________________________ Padre-dev mailing list Padre-dev@perlide.org http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev
