Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

* Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-10 17:30]: > Why should I add a dependency to correct code to placate the > CPANTS game? If you don’t care enough to add a dependency, why care at all? :-) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

Eric Wilhelm wrote: > # from David Golden > # on Wednesday 10 September 2008 11:00: > >>> If CPANTS can find the -w in the tests or whatever and the META.yml >>> says 5.6... (Because enabling warnings in *everyone else's* code is >>> a good way to placate a static kwalitee scanner?) I give up. >

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

# from David Golden # on Wednesday 10 September 2008 11:00: >> If CPANTS can find the -w in the tests or whatever and the META.yml >> says 5.6...  (Because enabling warnings in *everyone else's* code is >> a good way to placate a static kwalitee scanner?)  I give up. > >I don't think people realiz

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If CPANTS can find the -w in the tests or whatever and the META.yml says > 5.6... (Because enabling warnings in *everyone else's* code is a good > way to placate a static kwalitee scanner?) I give up. I don't think people

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Sep 10, 2008, at 10:30, Eric Wilhelm wrote: Yes. Please let's not start cutting the ends off of the ham just so we can get mom's old pan out of the attic. Why is there a ham in the pot in the attic? Must be a bit rotten. Best, David

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

# from Nicholas Clark # on Wednesday 10 September 2008 08:25: >> Problem is, the shebang line doesn???t actually *do* anything. >> >> The correct solution (which also doesn???t require changes to >> CPANTS) is called warnings::compat. Assuming you actually care >> that much??? > >I don't agree. I'

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:01:56PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-10 13:50]: > > Oh, but they *could* have them. > > > > And I think that is a perfect solution. CPANTS should check > > whether modules have a shebang line, and if so whether it > > co

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-10 13:50]: > Oh, but they *could* have them. > > And I think that is a perfect solution. CPANTS should check > whether modules have a shebang line, and if so whether it > contains -w. If it does then the author has asserted that the > module runs cleanly

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The correct solution (which also doesn't require changes to > CPANTS) is called warnings::compat. Assuming you actually care > that much… Assuming I don't mind adding a dependency that is only needed for perl < 5.6.

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:29:57AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Nicholas Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:12:24PM -0400, David Golden wrote: > >> Certainly, I'd have a higher CPANTS score if I could start adding "use > >> warnings" to my code. ;-) > > > > Wouldn't it be simpler to

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:12:24PM -0400, David Golden wrote: >> (CPAN::Reporter and deps are probably the exception and only because >> Slaven has sent me so many patches that I feel I owe it to him to >> support his Quixotic mission to smoke 5.005.) >> >> Certainly, I'd ha

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:12:24PM -0400, David Golden wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heh. You planted that bomb, dude. Any excuse I have to bump things > to 5.006 I've been taking and saying "because Schwern says so". > > (CPAN::Reporter

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Golden wrote: >> The problem is that we want Sub::Uplevel to do what people expect if >> they have already taken a knife to CORE::caller for some stupid >> reason, since nothing in Perl stops them from doing so. >

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

David Golden wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Taking a knife to CORE::caller() and then calling someone else's functions >> and >> expecting them to work is not a good idea. > > The problem is that we want Sub::Uplevel to do what people expe

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Taking a knife to CORE::caller() and then calling someone else's functions and > expecting them to work is not a good idea. The problem is that we want Sub::Uplevel to do what people expect if they have already taken a

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 09 September 2008 15:10:13 Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> The goal of the test seems to be to detect that a customized caller() >> routine is not blown away by Sub::Uplevel. A much safer way to do that is >> to have y

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Tuesday 09 September 2008 15:10:13 Michael G Schwern wrote: > The goal of the test seems to be to detect that a customized caller() > routine is not blown away by Sub::Uplevel.  A much safer way to do that is > to have your customized caller() just flick a file-scoped variable when it > gets ca

Re: Sub::Uplevel

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:09:55PM +, Smylers wrote: > Sounds like a cunning plan by the Sub::Uplevel author to get you to add > that module as a prereq for all yours, thereby increasing his kwalitee. I have no idea what you're talking about. [adjusts monocle, strokes white cat, smiles villain

Re: Sub::Uplevel

Ovid writes: > Guess what the following modules all have in common (aside from the > fact that I wrote them)? > > AI::NeuralNet::Simple > AI::Prolog > Games::Maze::FirstPerson > > All of them have failed at one time or another because the target > computer didn't have Sub::Uplevel installe

Re: Sub::Uplevel

On 9 Sep 2005, at 21:55, David Golden wrote: At least one of the culprits may be Test::Exception, for any version before 0.20. The problem is that CPANPLUS doesn't currently play well with Module::Build and doesn't respect the "build_requires" parameter, but only looks at the "requires"

Re: Sub::Uplevel

At least one of the culprits may be Test::Exception, for any version before 0.20. The problem is that CPANPLUS doesn't currently play well with Module::Build and doesn't respect the "build_requires" parameter, but only looks at the "requires" parameter. So you'll get unexpected failures for t