At 09:21 AM 4/24/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Craig Berry wrote: > >>I don't have any objection but I didn't know we needed this. Does it trap > >>something that has been broken before or are we just protecting ourselves >>from the possibility of the routines in question changing out from under >us? > >There were several goals: > >1) the regression testing functionality that you >mentioned. Note that perl on VMS is supposed to be able to compile under >gcc. Does that gcc run time provide perl's getpwuid() with appropriate >info? >Does that test run OK under all currently supported versions of VMS and >DEC/Compaq C RTL's? > >2) Help illustrate how the DCL examples from "HELP LEX F$IDENT EXAMP" can >be re-written in perl. See e.g.: > >http://www.openvms.compaq.com:8000/ssb71/9996/9996p028.htm#command_107 > >3) provide for some test coverage on VMS that the t/op/pwent.t type of >test already provides for unix without adding a bunch of >C<if ( $^O eq 'VMS' ) {> code to pwent.t. > >Is that adequate justification?
Sure, and I wasn't looking for justification so much as satisfying my curiosity. I think #3 alone makes it worthwhile if there's something other platforms are testing and we aren't.
