Ovid wrote:
>> Why not just load Perl once and fork for the execution of each test
>> script. You can pre-load modules before you fork.
>
> Forking is also more likely to be used for parallelization. Often code
> requires sweeping changes before it can be run in parallel. So this
> means we're
# from Ovid
# on Tuesday 01 January 2008 00:12:
>> Either way, it is glaringly bad code.
>>
>> a. any call to slurp() doesn't pass a filename -- screams of evil
>> b. 2-arg form of open -- banned
>> c. non-lexical filehandles -- banned
>
>This is the sort of stuff that tests are designed
On 01/01/2008, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do you happen to have another example? This one looks to me like
> > poorly
> > written code in the test (or are you citing this as code in the
> > product?)
>
> What??? That's the point!
>
> > Eith
On Tuesday 01 January 2008 00:20:20 Ovid wrote:
> Not if you want your code to run under 5.005. Some people still have
> that issue.
Yeah, but I can count the number of people who have that issue and
simultaneously have permission to install new modules on one hand and still
have all of my fin
Oh, and if you're going to take my *deliberately* bad example to task
...
--- Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sub slurp {
> >open FH, "< $file" or die $!;
> >do { $/ = undef; }
> > }
> b. 2-arg form of open -- banned
Not if you want your code to run under 5.005. Some
--- Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you happen to have another example? This one looks to me like
> poorly
> written code in the test (or are you citing this as code in the
> product?)
What??? That's the point!
> Either way, it is glaringly bad code.
>
> a. any call to slurp
On Dec 31, 2007, at 4:24 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 05:51:50PM -0500, James E Keenan wrote:
How might this be used to perform smoke-testing for a project like
Parrot, where we want to test on many combinations of operating
system,
platform and C compiler?
If anyone
