William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > At 01:53 PM 10/20/2003, Cliff Woolley wrote: > >On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >> * isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors > >> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> +1: jeff, jim > > > >I looked at it and it seemed reasonable but it stretches far enough beyond > >the bounds of my knowledge of its implications that I decided not to vote. > >Consider this a +0. > > I'm afraid I'm so far away from 1.3 that I'm in Cliff's boat, a strong +0 :) > Have you had a chance to run it through the perl-framework testsuite? > If so I'd give it +.5. >
Yes and it passes. The rub is that it changes behavior of modules that may be doing the "wrong thing" and I'm not sure if I wish to do that at this stage... Jeff, would it be OK if we skip this for 1.3.29 and potentially add it in for 1.3.30? -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
