Devel::Cover has been giving Test::More some indigestion lately. Threads.
Bleh. Paul put out a new version so I figured I'd try it out. It faired
reasonably well, everything but the threaded stuff ran better than the
last version.
So I looked at the coverage output.
-
On Tue 14 Dec 2004 16:21, "Clayton, Nik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've normally got enough going on in my head when writing code, worrying
> > > about the house style should not be one of them.
> >
> > Wrong. It should be. You write, and someone else - or yourself - has to
> > maintain the
> > I've normally got enough going on in my head when writing code, worrying
> > about the house style should not be one of them.
>
> Wrong. It should be. You write, and someone else - or yourself - has to
> maintain the code later. This means that you have to write with style and
> maintainabilit
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:15:45PM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 12:21:50PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2004, at 11:26, Clayton, Nik wrote:
>>> That's something the editor can care about. When I hit the TAB key it
>>> should just do whatever the house style
> I /think/ he means what the tab key's effect is when typed in
> his editor of choice
Correct. Hitting TAB should indent to the correct level for the current
context. I don't especially care whether the editor does by inserting
actual TAB characters or a bunch of spaces.
I've normally got eno
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 12:21:50PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2004, at 11:26, Clayton, Nik wrote:
> >To be honest, I don't care if someone's house style is for TAB to
> >indent
> >2, 4, or 8 characters; how much second level indentations are indented
> >by;
> >whether or not braces c
On 14 Dec 2004, at 11:26, Clayton, Nik wrote:
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?UncleBobOnCodingStandards
On coding standards:
I'd add an additional:
* Make sure your tools enforce them, and make complying with them
as simple as possible.
To be honest, I don't care if someone's house style is for TA
Howdy... Sorry for ad hoc reply, i wasn't subscribed to the list
before this.
I've started prelimenary work on Test::Harness::Daemon, which is
supposed to let you make various clients to testing. Some will
report, others will schedule, some will do both.
My plan was to write a client that starts
On Tue 14 Dec 2004 12:15, Ben Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:35:53AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Tripped across this on WardsWiki just now. #5 is my favorite as its often
> > forgotten in the noise.
> >
> > http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?UncleBobOnCodingStandard
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:35:53AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Tripped across this on WardsWiki just now. #5 is my favorite as its often
> forgotten in the noise.
>
> http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?UncleBobOnCodingStandards
>
> On coding standards:
>
>1. Let them evolve during the first f
> > http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?UncleBobOnCodingStandards
> >
> > On coding standards:
I'd add an additional:
* Make sure your tools enforce them, and make complying with them
as simple as possible.
To be honest, I don't care if someone's house style is for TAB to indent
2, 4, or 8 charact
Tripped across this on WardsWiki just now. #5 is my favorite as its often
forgotten in the noise.
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?UncleBobOnCodingStandards
On coding standards:
1. Let them evolve during the first few iterations.
2. Let them be team specific instead of company specific.
3. D
On Dec 13, 2004, at 11:10 AM, Jason Gessner wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Jason Gessner wrote:
Andy Lester wrote:
So it's sort of adding make functionality with prove. The way the
check
is running in the patch, the only criteria for updating it is
changes
in the .t file, but what if what you're u
On 13.Dec.2004 09:49AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm in love with (well, maybe just a crush on) the idea of
> having a continual prove in a window while you're running
> tests. I'm just trying to think of how best to do it.
There is an MIT study on using test-driven development in the
classroo
Andy Lester wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:24:26AM -0600, Jason Gessner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
This is not designed as a replacement for a cron'd prove. The way i see
it being used is in a terminal window adjacent to an editing session
while trying to nail down a problem.
So it's sort o
Jason Gessner wrote:
Andy Lester wrote:
So it's sort of adding make functionality with prove. The way the check
is running in the patch, the only criteria for updating it is changes
in the .t file, but what if what you're updating is the source file?
Detecting a change in the mod time for a .t fil
David Cantrell wrote:
Jason Gessner wrote:
Andy Lester wrote:
So it's sort of adding make functionality with prove. The way the check
is running in the patch, the only criteria for updating it is changes
in the .t file, but what if what you're updating is the source file?
Detecting a change in the
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:24:26AM -0600, Jason Gessner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> This is not designed as a replacement for a cron'd prove. The way i see
> it being used is in a terminal window adjacent to an editing session
> while trying to nail down a problem.
So it's sort of adding make
18 matches
Mail list logo
