Re: DIAGNOSTICS section

Nadim Khemir wrote: I believe it would be better to put the diagnostics in the methods generating them. Better yet, why would we we give a short error message when a longer, more complete message would be more appropriate? or maybe confess/carp should take a short and a long message and disply

Re: testing module loading output and testing under the debugger

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 16:04, Joshua ben Jore wrote: > It'd be nice if there were a pragma or function for use by > Devel::Cover which said just that: Nicer yet would be if Devel::Cover (and I haven't tried in a few months; too busy with other things, so if there's a fix now, not only will

Re: testing module loading output and testing under the debugger

On 12/19/06, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/19/06, Nadim Khemir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Personally I wouldn't get /too/ hung up about 100% test coverage - it > >can be taken too seriously. See Brian Marick's "How to Misuse Code > >Coverage"

DIAGNOSTICS section

Hi all, PBP p. 134 and 286 advocates the use of a "=head1 DIAGNOSTICS" section. Although this is a bit on the heavy side, I would tend to agree. I'm not sure it would help a lot of users but it makes one feel good (which is why we write module. Right?). my latest modules confess at 30 differen

Re: testing module loading output and testing under the debugger

On 12/19/06, Nadim Khemir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Personally I wouldn't get /too/ hung up about 100% test coverage - it >can be taken too seriously. See Brian Marick's "How to Misuse Code >Coverage" for example. Thanks for the article link. I've

Re: testing module loading output and testing under the debugger

Hi Josh, > Not true. If you real perldebguts you'll see that the debugger can be > scripted or you could write your own debugger. right and right but Devel::Ebug is simply much cleaner and I'd rather not mock a debugger when I can use a real one. Hi Adrian, >> The first problem I have is captu

Re: Measuring Complexity (was Re: Perl::Metrics::Simple 0.30)

On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Matisse Enzer wrote: I agree that ( $a == $b ) is not an extra branch, but, it is harder for a human to understand than ( $a ) When did this thread change from code complexity to human understandability? Those are rather different topics. ( $a ) of course

Re: Measuring Complexity (was Re: Perl::Metrics::Simple 0.30)

On Dec 17, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote: Matisse Enzer wrote: On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:13 PM, Chris Dolan wrote: OK, I see. Perhaps I was distracted from your main point by mention of cyclomatic complexity, which has a rather specific definition. Mea culpa. In the next release I