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

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 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

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

* 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 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

# 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 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

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

# 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

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

* 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 //