On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:00:42PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> 5.8.0's threads are giving me serious headaches. When 5.8.1 comes out I
> might drop support for 5.8.0's threads just so I can remove a large volume
> of work-around code.
Leaving support for 5.005 threads in? I'm confused.
Or
Recently I reported a bug which caused perl to segv.
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2002-10/msg00346.html
I thought the solution might be more complex than it turned out to be,
and so I included a patch to the test suite to add a TODO test using
fresh_perl_is().
Rafael
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought the solution might be more complex than it turned out to be,
> and so I included a patch to the test suite to add a TODO test using
> fresh_perl_is().
>
> Rafael was quite rightly concerned about this. When the bug is fixed we
> don't want unne
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:46:38PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> The reason I went with no_plan in Test::Inline was that unlike a dedicated
> test script, a T::I test is cobbled together from a series of seperated
> blocks of tests and it's more difficult than usual to count them all and add
>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:34:26AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:00:42PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > 5.8.0's threads are giving me serious headaches. When 5.8.1 comes out I
> > might drop support for 5.8.0's threads just so I can remove a large volume
> > of wo
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:01:10PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Sunday, October 13, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Tony Bowden wrote:
>
> >> Makes it simpler for people who prefer the 'no_plan' style of
> >> testing
> >
> >Maybe this is what I just don't get. I'm not one of those people, so I
