RFC 186 is another interesting -io RFC, even though I'm not on the -io
list. I couldn't find any discussion in the mail archive, so here's
some to
start it. Please copy me on the discussion. Sorry for cross posting,
but
this is attempting to unify RFCs from different lists; I've bcc'd two of
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:21:25PM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
This RFC also seems to be related to RFC 183... using POD for testing. Now
the model of use apparently envisioned for RFC 183 is to have the tests
inside the POD, and then use a preprocessor to hack them out and put them in
Glenn Linderman wrote:
I have a number of scripts that use this sort of facility, using push/shift
to populate/read the array "file". These could be made simpler and more
general by wrapping the array as a file.
Perhaps the open "handler" stuff could be used to implement this?
Michael,
Thanks for the explanation. So you see, I'm one of those people that go around
looking for redundancies to eliminate. So when I hear that you want to extract
a .t file from perl source (as specified by the RFC 183), it makes me wonder
1) why extract it if it could potentially be used
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 12:15:28PM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
1) why extract it if it could potentially be used in place
2) if it cannot be used in place, then why bundle it
So I guess RFC 183 leaves me not understanding its goals. If there
is a benefit to the bundling, then RFC 183
RFC 186 is another interesting -io RFC, even though I'm not on the -io
list. I couldn't find any discussion in the mail archive, so here's
some to
start it. Please copy me on the discussion. Sorry for cross posting,
but
this is attempting to unify RFCs from different lists; I've bcc'd two of
