At 02:18 PM 2/18/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:30:50PM -, Paul Marquess wrote:
> > From perllexwarn:
> >
> > -W
> >
> > If the -W flag is used on the command line, it will enable
> > all warnings throughout the program regardless of whether warnings
> > we
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:03:54 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>It is one hell of a burden to find a missing 'use strict' or 'use warnings'.
>'Well, type them then' you say. Right, and always type ';' at each line, or 1;
>at the end of each file. Its as unavoidable as a *syntax error*, which is the
>
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 02:16:21PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> The things you mention are procedural. And as tempting as it is to enforce a
> little vigor on procedure, I agree with you. I don't want to make a coding
> architecture on by default..
The decision to write tests and docs is proce
From: Edward Peschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
> I'm beginning to think there should be an extra flag that turns
> *on* warnings
> even if 'no warnings' is explicitly stated. This is the 'enable
> me to help you
> out' flag. That way, it would be a lot easier for me as a module
> consume
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:30:50PM -, Paul Marquess wrote:
> From: Edward Peschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> ...
> > I'm beginning to think there should be an extra flag that turns
> > *on* warnings
> > even if 'no warnings' is explicitly stated. This is the 'enable
> > me to help you
> > --- t/run/runenv.t 2001/02/18 05:58:06 1.1
> > +++ t/run/runenv.t 2001/02/18 06:09:10
>
> Applied, thanks.
(Had to add run/*.t to the list of testables in t/TEST.)
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 01:11:35AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:45:46AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > > Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
> >
> > ...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked on it and we put together something
which was OK.
--
You're not Dave. Who are you?
> print < I consider a module without tests or documentation to be a syntax
> error. Maybe perl should refuse to run a module without POD and
> MakeMaker should refuse to install a module without tests unless given
> a special flag. Then people will sometimes forget to use that flag
> and they'l
