# 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
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 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 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
On Jan 6, 2008, at 5:10 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
nadim khemir wrote:
As for the layers of neurosis, the only anxiety is the one created
by your own
delusions. I see only a test like an other.
If we had infinite time and attention, yes. But we don't. And
time spent
checking the retur
nadim khemir wrote:
> As for the layers of neurosis, the only anxiety is the one created by your
> own
> delusions. I see only a test like an other.
If we had infinite time and attention, yes. But we don't. And time spent
checking the return value of print and writing a complicated test for if
On Saturday 05 January 2008 14:00:41 nadim khemir wrote:
> Do you happend to know something about
> replacing 'print' with XS code short of patching perl (which doesn't sound
> like a good idea)
Sure, swap the pp_print function pointer in the opcode array before you
compile the code you wish to
# from Nicholas Clark
# on Saturday 05 January 2008 14:24:
>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
That would be cool.
>Your own function calls the original, and then before ret
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:00:41PM +0100, nadim khemir wrote:
> day an the answer was 'no'. Do you happend to know something about
> replacing 'print' with XS code short of patching perl (which doesn't sound
> like a good idea)
Not tested, but, can you
1: grab the address of print's op from PL
On Saturday 05 January 2008 20.21.59 Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> Even if it weren't a system handle, in what situation does print()
> return false?
>
> 1. Closed handle
> 2. Unopened handle
> 3. Disk full
>
> Unless I've missed one, you don't need to check the return value of
> print.
>
> I will
On Saturday 05 January 2008 15.08.55 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> nadim khemir wrote:
> > print 'hi' or carp q{can't print!} ;
>
> I'm not even going to wade into the layers of neurosis demonstrated in this
> post, but if you want to throw an error use croak().
No more testing at 3 AM for me of cour
# from nadim khemir
# on Saturday 05 January 2008 03:53:
>print 'hello' ;
>
>triggers the wrath of InputOutput::RequireCheckedSyscalls with the
>message "Return value of flagged function ignored".
>
>...
>
>There is no chance that P::C could know I'm writting on a system
> handle that woul
nadim khemir wrote:
> print 'hi' or carp q{can't print!} ;
I'm not even going to wade into the layers of neurosis demonstrated in this
post, but if you want to throw an error use croak().
--
...they shared one last kiss that left a bitter yet sweet taste in her
mouth--kind of like throwing up a
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:53:35PM +0100, nadim khemir wrote:
> Next problem is coverage. Nothing upsets me more than a 99.8% coverage. I'd
> almost prefere a 80% coverage to 99.8%.
>
> So I tried to test that case with
>
> {
> use IO::File;
> my $current_fh = select ;
>
>
With the advent of intensive coverage tests and zealous Perl::Critic policies,
testing even simple things is getting messy.
even a moundain:
print 'hello' ;
triggers the wrath of InputOutput::RequireCheckedSyscalls with the
message "Return value of flagged function ignored".
This is
17 matches
Mail list logo
