Michael G Schwern writes:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:45:35AM +, Smylers wrote:
A good way of putting assumptions into code is with (Michael's
excellent) Carp::Assert:
assert $p || $q, 'Either $p or $q must be supplied' if DEBUG;
While I get where you're going, I don't see
Michael G Schwern writes:
my $foo = $p || $q is not boolean. I'm not even sure you can call
it pseudo-boolean without understanding the surrounding code. How
do you know that $q can never be false?
So we want some way of annotating the code which will let Devel::Cover
know that you're
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:45:35AM +, Smylers wrote:
I can see why having 'inline' directives specifically for Devel::Cover
could be seen as ugly, but if instead they are general-purpose
assumptions then it's obviously better to have them next to the code
that's relying on the assumption
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I respectfully disagree. I think you're focusing too much on the low-level
behavior of || returning one of its operands. That behavior makes Perl's syntax
flexible and a little ambiguous. Because Perl doesn't make a distinction between
assign with a default value and
Michael G Schwern wrote:
The other examples in the ticket play out the same way:
bless {}, ref $class || $class;
I encountered the coverage problem inherent in this code in the
constructor of a module whose maintenance I recently assumed. (For that
matter, I could have
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:44:02PM -0400, James E Keenan wrote:
The other examples in the ticket play out the same way:
bless {}, ref $class || $class;
I encountered the coverage problem inherent in this code in the
constructor of a module whose maintenance I recently assumed.
In HTML::Widgets::NavMenu I have the following code:
sub get_coords_while_skipping_skips
{
my $self = shift;
my $callback = shift;
my $coords = shift || $self-get_current_coords(); # line 571
Now when I run the tests with Devel::Cover it reports the following for line
571 in the
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 19:27:52 +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
my $coords = shift;
if (!$coords)
{
$coords = $self-get_current_coords();
}
A work around:
$coords = scalar(@_) ? shift : $self-get_current_coords();
I should also note that I have many
my @coords = @{shift
2005/7/11, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Coverage reporting is not done for the pretty colors - a human reads
it, and says OK, this is logical, get_current_coords always returns
a true value. It's not a race for greens and percentages.
otherwise it should be called golf... :)
--
Jérôme
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:38:57PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
So what should I do to eliminate it?
Maybe Just Nothing
The issue is that you can't special case get_current_coords to be
truish, as far as Devel::Cover is concerned - it might not be.
Any fix that could be thought up is
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 13:17:48 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:38:57PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
I'll make the same argument no broken windows argument here that I do
about warnings and tests: elminate all warnings, even if they are dubious.
Ensure all tests
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:17:48PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:38:57PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
So what should I do to eliminate it?
Maybe Just Nothing
The issue is that you can't special case get_current_coords to be
truish, as far as Devel::Cover
Michael G Schwern wrote:
What's missing is a way to let Devel::Cover know that a bit of coverage is
not necessary. The first way to do this which pops into my mind is a comment.
my $foo = $bar || default(); # DC ignore X|0
I posted an item about this usage of the || operator the
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:22:51PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
my $foo = $bar || default(); # DC ignore X|0
Hey, Devel::Cover! Ignore the case where the right side of this logic is
false.
I wasn't particularly happy with the idea of needing to change the
source code just to
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 17:33:26 -0400, David Golden wrote:
Want.pm seems to imply that this might be possible, but I don't
know the guts of Perl well enough.
Want looks into the opcode tree and looks for context thingies
inside it, so it should be possible as far as I understand from
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 05:33:26PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
http://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bug.html?id=11304
My suggestion turns on the question of whether it's possible to
differentiate the context between a true boolean context ( foo() if $p
|| $q ) and a pseudo-boolean context that is
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 02:54:19PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:22:51PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
my $foo = $bar || default(); # DC ignore X|0
Hey, Devel::Cover! Ignore the case where the right side of this logic is
false.
I wasn't
Michael G Schwern wrote:
my $foo = $p || $q is not boolean. I'm not even sure you can call it
pseudo-boolean without understanding the surrounding code. How do you
know that $q can never be false?
The other examples in the ticket play out the same way:
bless {}, ref $class || $class;
$class
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:43:24PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
I think this is a coverage vs correctness distinction. The idea that I
was trying to convey is that while these expressions use a boolean
operator for a shortcut, they aren't really about truth vs. falsity of
the overall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
you're right that the case of $class being false may be of interest,
but that's not what this common idiom actually does. The code will
blithely pass a false value to bless (with potentially unexpected
results depending on whether
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 02:54:19PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:22:51PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
my $foo = $bar || default(); # DC ignore X|0
Hey, Devel::Cover! Ignore the case where the right side of this logic is
false.
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:46 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say this idiom is one of the ones I am most often affected by in the
work I do for the Kwalitee project - the my$class = ref$proto||$proto;
idiom in constructors. I usually do the following
1. Add code to handle the 'both
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:46 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Add code to handle the 'both false' case, similiar to
my $class = ref $proto || $proto;
warn 'wrong calling convention for Class::Constructor::new - try
Class::Constructor-new' and return
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:28:01PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
1. emit a text version of the coverage failures which
a. has same info as html details - ie line# conditionals, code
b. starts with a comment.
2. use that 'exact' format as your ignore directive
a. except that # means its entirely
24 matches
Mail list logo
