Pete Krawczyk wrote:
Consider the following code:
$impclass ||= implementor($scheme) ||
do {
require URI::_foreign;
$impclass = 'URI::_foreign';
};
That's in URI.pm, lines 54-58.
Devel::Cover treats that as a conditional. So short of deleting
URI::_forei
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:09 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I document private code like this:
=begin private
put your normal POD here
=end private
perldoc won't show the POD but someone reading through the code (and
thus
needing to know about private functions) will see it. And POD is very
readable i
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 03:07:22PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I think that reg-ex is too loose (and incorrect, but I know you really
> meant /^[A-Z]+$/). I would rather see it check for all the documented
> magic methods rather than a catch all for UPPERCASE names. Even tho
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:26:44PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> As for POD, in most cases, I agree with you, but to say you should have
> 100% POD coverage brings up several other questions, such as; Should I
> document private methods? What about modules which are meant to b
Micheal,
On Jul 11, 2004, at 2:09 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:26:44PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
As for POD, in most cases, I agree with you, but to say you should
have
100% POD coverage brings up several other questions, such as; Should I
document private methods?
IMP
Subject: Re: Phalanx: What if full coverage isn't possible? (fwd)
From: stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:26:44 -0400
}As for POD, in most cases, I agree with you, but to say you should have
}100% POD coverage brings up several other questions, such as; Should I
}docume
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:26:44PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> As for POD, in most cases, I agree with you, but to say you should have
> 100% POD coverage brings up several other questions, such as; Should I
> document private methods?
IMPO yes, but Pod::Coverage (and thus Devel::Cover) will
On Jul 9, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
Don't be mesmerized by 100% coverage.
Agreed 100% here. However, I stand by my original statement that you
CAN have 100% coverage on subroutines and pod. Any disagreement on
that
one?
I agree with having 100% on subroutines, and I would add that 100
On 7/11/2004 12:46 AM Michael G Schwern wrote:
Most modules now have a META.yml file which contains (amongst other things)
module dependency information. Simplest thing to do would be to make a
local miniCPAN mirror [1] and walk through the archive files [2] in
modules/02packages.details.txt look
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:35 PM, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
The reason is that I would like to integreate this with testing
information from the CPAN Testers. So if I find that there are no
testing results for platform 'x' for a specific module, I can check to
see if one of the dependent modules fai
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:46:01AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Most modules now have a META.yml file which contains (amongst other things)
> module dependency information. Simplest thing to do would be to make a
> local miniCPAN mirror [1] and walk through the archive files [2] in
> modules
11 matches
Mail list logo
