# from Eric Wilhelm # on Sunday 08 April 2007 09:41 pm: >Alternatively, maybe what I want is just for Pod::Coverage to not > check any symbols that aren't static subs in the package in question. > (I guess that would solve the whole @INC bug as well and we could > just statically scan the code.) I mean, if you're creating the > symbols via glob-juggling and etc, do you want your podcoverage tests > checking those?
Wow! Why didn't I think of that earlier? This is actually far more correct, plus *actually* checks the pod in packages which don't compile (e.g. they require Win32) on the current machine. And, it's a crazy amount faster than loading all of your modules. WTF? http://svn.dotreader.com/svn/dotreader/trunk/inc/dtRdrBuilder/AlsoPodCoverage.pm So what if it is naive to think that all subs match qr/^sub /? I'm not looking for all of the subs, only the ones that should be documented. As a convention, I think it works better to just do a stupid-simple static scan. If you indent the sub, you're implying that you're not going to document it (and probably including a comment as to why you have to override the base method or whatever.) So, why did I bother with the whole =for podcoverage_trustme thing? Easter herring I guess. --Eric -- But you can never get 3n from n, ever, and if you think you can, please email me the stock ticker of your company so I can short it. --Joel Spolsky --------------------------------------------------- http://scratchcomputing.com ---------------------------------------------------
