# from Nicholas Clark
# on Monday 07 January 2008 08:25:
>I think that it's already been suggested that it can be done lexically
> in 5.10 (and later) by inspecting $^H, and only croaking if it's void
> context and and a user defined lexical pragma has enabled it.
Yes, and that's the only way I w
Hey guys.
Oslo.pm is planning a Perl QA Workshop/Hackathon in Oslo, Saturday April
4th to Monday April 7th, 2008. This is the official "Call for Attention"
mail. If you care about general Perl QA issues, please direct your browser
to the following page:
http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index
On 7 Jan 2008, at 16:29, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:59:18PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
Actually, I've had some nasty bugs in the past with prints failing
with dodgy NFS mounts. Caused some important data to go away. Not my
code fortunately :-)
In these circumstances p
On 7 Jan 2008, at 16:05, David Golden wrote:
Whoops. Answered too quickly and should clarify:
* "exit 0" if you don't want a report to be sent
* die with the phrase "OS unsupported" if you want an NA report to
be sent
Actually I questioned too quickly and should also clarify. It is, in
f
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:59:18PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Actually, I've had some nasty bugs in the past with prints failing
> with dodgy NFS mounts. Caused some important data to go away. Not my
> code fortunately :-)
In these circumstances print failed but the close on the file did n
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:19:17PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 10:24:47PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > Not tested, but, can you
> >
> > 1: grab the address of print's op from PL_ppaddr
> > 2: store it somewhere useful
> > 3: replace it in PL_ppaddr with your own f
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 10:24:47PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Not tested, but, can you
>
> 1: grab the address of print's op from PL_ppaddr
> 2: store it somewhere useful
> 3: replace it in PL_ppaddr with your own function
>
> Your own function calls the original, and then before returning,
On Jan 7, 2008 11:02 AM, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 10:52 AM, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can anyone remember how Makefile.PL is supposed to exit if it can't
> > find, for example, an executable that it needs. I want the test result
> > to be NA rathe
On 7 Jan 2008, at 16:02, David Golden wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 10:52 AM, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can anyone remember how Makefile.PL is supposed to exit if it can't
find, for example, an executable that it needs. I want the test
result
to be NA rather than FAIL in that case.
On Jan 7, 2008 10:52 AM, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anyone remember how Makefile.PL is supposed to exit if it can't
> find, for example, an executable that it needs. I want the test result
> to be NA rather than FAIL in that case.
# before generating the Makefile
exit 0;
On 6 Jan 2008, at 11:10, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
But it gets down even further. All tests are not equal. Good
tests are not
about making perlcritic happy or achieving 100% test coverage or
satisfying
some conviction about testing first.
[snip]
Absolute 100% agreement from me. I'v
Can anyone remember how Makefile.PL is supposed to exit if it can't
find, for example, an executable that it needs. I want the test result
to be NA rather than FAIL in that case.
I'm sure DAGOLDEN said something sensible about it recently but I'm
buggered if I can remember :)
--
Andy Arms
Zefram wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
>> $VERSION= "1.23_01";
>
> I've not seen that form, but
>
> $VERSION = 1.23_01;
>
> which of course doesn't put the underscore in the string value. This
> still delimits the subrevision portion, but without forcing anything
> else to handle the delimiter.
demerphq wrote:
>>> $VERSION = "1.12_01";
>>> $XS_VERSION = $VERSION; # only needed if you have XS code
>>> $VERSION = eval $VERSION;
>
> im not convinced this actually does anything. ISTR i had to roll my
> own "parse out the $XS_VERSION code" thingee for DDS.
I;m very onfident that the re
# from Eric Wilhelm
# on Sunday 06 January 2008 19:21:
>So, if all of the alpha-y magic is just in the filename, what would
>happen if "make dist" had an "alpha" option which injected "TRIAL"
> into the filename? Would that appropriately tickle the other half of
> that if() at line 1474?
Well, s
On 07/01/2008, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, January 6, 2008 4:54 pm, demerphq wrote:
> > So we are told the way to mark a module as development is to use an
> > underbar in the version number:
> >
> > $VERSION= "1.23_01";
> >
> >
> > but this will produce warnings if
16 matches
Mail list logo
