On Monday 23 July 2001 14:05, Dave Storrs wrote:
No, I do not mean something like Devel::DProf; that is a
module. I mean something that is in the core binary, the same way that
the perl debugger is in the core binary.
Except that the perl debugger is not in the perl binary. There
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Dave Storrs wrote:
I discovered today that I had forgotten to put 'use strict' at the top of
one of my modules...it was in the script that _used_ the module, but not
in the module itself. Putting it in instantly caught several annoying
bugs that I'd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
I discovered today that I had forgotten to put 'use strict' at the top of
one of my modules...it was in the script that _used_ the module, but not
in the module itself. Putting it in instantly caught
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Dan Brian wrote:
The debugger API PDD that I submitted a couple of days ago suggested that
we incorporate a profiler into the core. What do people think of this
idea?
I think that with a clean API, many third-party profilers could and would
be created. I am
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
It would be nice if there was a
use strict 'recursive';
option that you could set in a script or module (package, whatever) which
would force all the modules it used
DS == Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS A good point. There should definitely be a clean API so that
DS other people can develop their own profilers which could then be
DS plugged in. This still leaves the question though...should core
DS provide a default profiler?
it
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Johan Vromans wrote:
Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I discovered today that I had forgotten to put 'use strict' at the top of
one of my modules...it was in the script that _used_ the module, but not
in the module itself. Putting it in instantly caught
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 10:56:41AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
A good point. There should definitely be a clean API so that
other people can develop their own profilers which could then be plugged
in. This still leaves the question though...should core provide a default
profiler?
What
At 02:47 PM 7/21/2001 -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
Second topic:
The debugger API PDD that I submitted a couple of days ago suggested that
we incorporate a profiler into the core. What do people think of this
idea?
A simple version will probably be included--I expect to hack one together
for my
DS == Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Second topic:
DS The debugger API PDD that I submitted a couple of days ago suggested that
DS we incorporate a profiler into the core. What do people think of this
DS idea?
only if it can be shut off with no penalty. that may mean a
Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I discovered today that I had forgotten to put 'use strict' at the top of
one of my modules...it was in the script that _used_ the module, but not
in the module itself. Putting it in instantly caught several annoying
bugs that I'd been trying to track
First topic:
I discovered today that I had forgotten to put 'use strict' at the top of
one of my modules...it was in the script that _used_ the module, but not
in the module itself. Putting it in instantly caught several annoying
bugs that I'd been trying to track down.
It would be nice if
The debugger API PDD that I submitted a couple of days ago suggested that
we incorporate a profiler into the core. What do people think of this
idea?
I think that with a clean API, many third-party profilers could and would
be created. I am skeptical of the value of putting it in the core,
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
I discovered today that I had forgotten to put 'use strict' at the top of
one of my modules...it was in the script that _used_ the module, but not
in the module itself. Putting it in instantly caught several annoying
bugs that I'd
14 matches
Mail list logo
