-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 18-Feb-02 Richard Clamp tried to scribble about:
> There's a new release in town. It scratches off one of the oldest
> TODO items, that of counting the docs in the base class(es) towards
> your packages coverage.
Thanx, much appreciated.
Cheers,
Te
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 04-Sep-01 Richard Clamp tried to scribble about:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:24:51PM +0200, Tels wrote:
>> attached is a revised version of pod_cover.pl which you can use to test
>> a whole distribution using the new v0.06 API.
> Cool, may I slurp tha
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:24:51PM +0200, Tels wrote:
> attached is a revised version of pod_cover.pl which you can use to test a
> whole distribution using the new v0.06 API.
Cool, may I slurp that in as another example script?
--
Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
god damn, even superman shot
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:57:01AM +0100, Richard Clamp wrote:
> Tony, can you give me feedback on if 0.06 is now more like what you
> hacked 0.02 into, or does it still need that separate _load_code
> interface?
I think it does. Perhaps, I haven't quite delved deeply enough, but the
issue I face
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
oups, round 2. Stupid, I should have tested it better before:
Have fun,
Tels
- --
perl -MMath::String -e 'print \
Math::String->from_number("215960156869840440586892398248"),"\n"'
http://bloodgate.com/thief/ Thief - The Dark Project
http://bloo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
attached is a revised version of pod_cover.pl which you can use to test a
whole distribution using the new v0.06 API.
Pod::Coverage 0.06 is still falsely reporting the overload thingies as
naked - that should not happen per default since these subs do ne
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 05:50:28PM +0200, Tels wrote:
> Did I explain it better now?
Yes. Actually in retrospect you covered it well enough before, I was
just being dense. Maths never was my strong suit.
> No problem with the name ;) (Could have an uncovered() alias, though ;)
Done. It gave
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:30:24PM +0100, Richard Clamp wrote:
> > Beside that, it seems not be able to find doc paragraphs for multiply
> > functions like this:
> >
> > =head2 get_foo/get_blah/get_baz
> >
> > These functions get you an item back of the number and type you specified:
> True, t
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 07:07:42PM +0200, Tels wrote:
> Attached is a script to test all modules in a dist,
Attachment error #1
> I think a "make
> pod-cover" and "make test-cover" would be cool, but I am not able to do such
> a beast.
Me also
(ok, I know there's 0.04 now, but I've deleted that announcement)
The thing I'd *really* like to see in this now is the ability to run
it on arbitrary code - not just installed modules. i.e. I want to add
it to a 'build' process, that will automatically reject code that isn't
fully documented -
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:27:15AM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 05:18:07AM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> > How would I keep it from complaining about undocumented,
> > internal-use-only helper functions?
>
> It currently allows any name starting with an underscore to be
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 05:18:07AM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> How would I keep it from complaining about undocumented,
> internal-use-only helper functions?
It currently allows any name starting with an underscore to be
undocumented...
I'd assume that a future version would allow you to
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 03:02:16PM +0100, Richard Clamp wrote:
>
> Caveats, this isn't heading to CPAN today at the testsuite is far from
> comprehensive, and I'd like some feedback before I release it. That
> and I was due to meet people at the pub an hour ago.
How would I keep it from complai
13 matches
Mail list logo
