Personally, I find the POD useful when I'm going thru a Devel::Cover
run. I
interleave POD with functions and I like to refer to my docs.
Well, since POD is intended to be documentation (not code or even
comments) it
seems reasonable to omit it from a coverage report. That said, if I
can find a
On 11/3/2003 12:20 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:33:09PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Right now, if your cover_db holds data for a dozen files, but you test them
>> one at a time, you have to read and write *all* the coverage data (as well
>> as have the RAM to hold it
On 10/31/2003 8:08 AM, Andy Lester wrote:
>
> Personally, I find the POD useful when I'm going thru a Devel::Cover run. I
> interleave POD with functions and I like to refer to my docs.
Well, since POD is intended to be documentation (not code or even comments) it
seems reasonable to omit it from
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:33:56AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> >But rather than post emails with such guidelines, only for them to
> >be lost in the sands of time, wouldn't it be better to update the
> >web site?
>
> Yeah, it would. I'd like to come up with a list of guidelines of
> things to wa
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:33:09PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:37:29PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
At 17:51 +0100 11/3/03, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> Just wondering, is keys() optimized for void context? Perlfunc
only states:
> As a side effect, calling keys() resets the HASHâ¤_s internal
iterator...
Yes, it is.
Ok, so it is indeed "cheap"!
> If keys() _is
Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> Just wondering, is keys() optimized for void context? Perlfunc only states:
>
> As a side effect, calling keys() resets the HASHâ¤_s internal iterator...
Yes, it is.
> If keys() _is_ optimized for void context, a change in the
> perlfunc.pod seems to be in orde
At 14:06 + 11/3/03, Tim Bunce wrote:
Its cheap to reset an itterator, just do
keys %foo;
before the C loop.
Just wondering, is keys() optimized for void context? Perlfunc only states:
As a side effect, calling keys() resets the HASH⤁s internal iterator...
If it is _not_ optimized
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:06:01PM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> A separate issue with C is that code using it generally assumes
> that the has itterator is at the start of the hash. If it's not
> (because an C loop somewhere terminated early, for example)
> then some items of the hash will be skipped.
But rather than post emails with such guidelines, only for them to
be lost in the sands of time, wouldn't it be better to update the
web site?
Yeah, it would. I'd like to come up with a list of guidelines of
things to watch for. Lately, I've been spending my free time on prove
and Test::Harness
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:20:11AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> >>Anything that uses the C operator is a prime candidate for
> >>bugginess. Please keep an eye out for them as you do your testing.
> >>Any function that contains C oughta be heavily checked.
> >>
> >>Ditto anything that uses C or C wi
11 matches
Mail list logo
