On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, at 10:30, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 31 Aug 2021, at 06:19, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 9:23 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:27:09PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>> There doesn't seem to have been much
> On 31 Aug 2021, at 06:19, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 9:23 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:27:09PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> There doesn't seem to have been much pushback, so let's try it and see.
>>
>> Okay, fine by me.
>
> +1
Since
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 9:23 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:27:09PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > There doesn't seem to have been much pushback, so let's try it and see.
>
> Okay, fine by me.
+1
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:27:09PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> There doesn't seem to have been much pushback, so let's try it and see.
Okay, fine by me.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 8/27/21 6:32 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 01:26:23PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> I'm fine with increasing this policy, but I don't have strong feelings. If
>>> we
>>> feel the perlcritic policy change is too much, I
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 01:26:23PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I'm fine with increasing this policy, but I don't have strong feelings. If
>> we
>> feel the perlcritic policy change is too much, I would still prefer to go
>> ahead
>> with the map rewrite part
> On 27 Aug 2021, at 08:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 01:26:23PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I'm fine with increasing this policy, but I don't have strong feelings. If
>> we
>> feel the perlcritic policy change is too much, I would still prefer to go
>> ahead
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 01:26:23PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I'm fine with increasing this policy, but I don't have strong feelings. If we
> feel the perlcritic policy change is too much, I would still prefer to go
> ahead
> with the map rewrite part of the patch though.
I have no issue
ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
> Hi hackers,
>
> In the patches for improving the MSVC build process, I noticed a use of
> `map` in void context. This is considered bad form, and has a
> perlcritic policy forbidding it:
>
> On 28 Jul 2021, at 13:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 7/27/21 12:06 PM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Hi hackers,
>>
>> In the patches for improving the MSVC build process, I noticed a use of
>> `map` in void context. This is considered bad form, and has a
>> perlcritic policy
On 7/27/21 12:06 PM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> In the patches for improving the MSVC build process, I noticed a use of
> `map` in void context. This is considered bad form, and has a
> perlcritic policy forbidding it:
>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 09:09:10PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2021, at 18:06, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that increases severity of that and the
>> corresponding `grep` policy to 5 to enable it in our perlcritic policy,
>> and fixes the one use that
> On 27 Jul 2021, at 18:06, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Attached is a patch that increases severity of that and the
> corresponding `grep` policy to 5 to enable it in our perlcritic policy,
> and fixes the one use that had already snuck in.
+1, the use of foreach also improves readability
Hi hackers,
In the patches for improving the MSVC build process, I noticed a use of
`map` in void context. This is considered bad form, and has a
perlcritic policy forbidding it:
https://metacpan.org/pod/Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitVoidMap.
Attached is a patch that increases
14 matches
Mail list logo
