Subject: Re: Test::More behavior issue with Devel::Cover + patch
From: Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:14:34 -0500
}It was using -isa instead of UNIVERSAL::isa because isa might be
}overridden. Surely the same could apply to -can.
I've been thinking about it, and it'd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Friday 04 November 2005 21:39, Pete Krawczyk wrote:
Subject: Re: Test::More behavior issue with Devel::Cover + patch
From: Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:14:34 -0500
}It was using -isa instead of UNIVERSAL::isa because
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 21:49 +0100, Tels wrote:
Not sure if a ref() check will suffice, but you could also always call:
$object-can();
if it is not defined, it would use UNIVERSAL::can, otherwise the overriden
one. Or do I miss something?
There are two caveats. First, if $object
Subject: Re: Test::More behavior issue with Devel::Cover + patch
From: Tels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 21:49:49 +0100
}Not sure if a ref() check will suffice, but you could also always call:
}
} $object-can();
}
}if it is not defined, it would use UNIVERSAL::can
Subject: Re: Test::More behavior issue with Devel::Cover + patch
From: chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:59:14 -0800
}First, if $object is a class name, it may succeed.
If $object is a class name in this case, the !ref($object) in the code
will catch it and guide it away
* Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-03 19:20]:
* Pete Krawczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-03T12:46:48]
The solution I see is to make sure the object can() isa(),
thus avoiding the die in the process:
It was using -isa instead of UNIVERSAL::isa because isa might
be
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 22:53 +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
b) Who cares? We just want to know whether calling -isa() is
safe, and UNIVERSAL::can answers that handily.
But it's *wrong* and you oughtn't ever use it where someone else might
see it and think that it's okay, because it's *wrong* and
Pete Krawczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone have a better way of checking whether an object is blessed
that's backportable through core?
I recently used UNIVERSAL::isa($ref, 'UNIVERSAL') for this purpose.
It was good enough for me, but I have not considered how generic it
may be nor
First of all, I have Test::More 0.62 installed and Devel::Cover 0.55 under
Perl 5.8.2. I also have a simple test script:
$ cat test.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use Test::More tests = 1;
$a = {};
isa_ok($a,'HASH');
...which works well under prove:
$ prove test.pl
testok
* Pete Krawczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-03T12:46:48]
The solution I see is to make sure the object can() isa(), thus avoiding
the die in the process:
It was using -isa instead of UNIVERSAL::isa because isa might be
overridden. Surely the same could apply to -can.
--
rjbs
Subject: Re: Test::More behavior issue with Devel::Cover + patch
From: Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:14:34 -0500
}* Pete Krawczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-03T12:46:48]
}
} The solution I see is to make sure the object can() isa(), thus avoiding
} the die
11 matches
Mail list logo
