Re: Fields in Makefile.PL
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 15:37, Andy Lester wrote: > > Run h2xs, they very needed fields will be into the Makefile.PL > > Or use Module::Starter, which is more up-to-date. I am using Module::Starter :-) I started using it this weekend (for Games::Score) (And yes, it is great :-) ). But I was looking at my other modules and that's when I thought that I might had been missing something... apparently, I wasn't, which is a good thing :-) Thanks :-) > xoa -- José Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://natura.di.uminho.pt/~jac
Fields in Makefile.PL
Hi. I'm trying to normalize some modules, regarding tests, Makefile.PL, etc. I have a question: what fields do you find required or advisable in every Makefile.PL? I usually have NAME, VERSION_FROM, PREREQ_PM, AUTHOR... am I missing something important? TIA, jac -- José Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://natura.di.uminho.pt/~jac
Re: Best Practice for renaming modules?
On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 13:22, Martyn J. Pearce wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 07:12:20AM -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm seeking feedback on the best way to rename a CPAN module with an > > established user base. I was thinking of a process like this: > > > > 1. Release the module under the new name. > > > > 2. Make another release under the old name, leaving the functionality > >intact, but with a clear disclaimer near the top: > > An alternative approach is to release the old module as a nullary subclass of > the new (with a deprecation warning). Whether this is preferred is, I > suspect, a case-by-case issue. I was wondering... either of these approaches leave an unmaintained module on the CPAN, right? Does anyone have any idea of how many modules are there in the condition? There won't be many, probably, but I was wondering that when we say "CPAN has now N modules", it actually has x% of N of working modules, y% of N of unmaintained modules, etc... AFAIK, there is no way of knowing this percentages, is there? There is no way of tracking the condition of modules, right? Couldn't something be suggested? Even if it's just adding something to the docs, something that later on could be harvested... jac > Mx. -- José Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://natura.di.uminho.pt/~jac signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Let's eliminate the Module List
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 18:54, Simon Cozens wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jose Alves de Castro) writes: > > I don't want to show the results of a search. I want to say "Here is the > > link to the module list. See how long it is? It contains practically > > everything you need, doesn't it?" > > http://www.cpan.org/modules/02packages.details.txt.gz It seems like I'm the only one, but I still prefer the other list... :-( It has the module descriptions and all... :-( -- José Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://natura.di.uminho.pt/~jac signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Let's eliminate the Module List
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 17:35, Fergal Daly wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 05:24:57PM +0100, Jose Alves de Castro wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 16:47, Christopher Hicks wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Hugh S. Myers wrote: > > > > > > > It seems to me that ANY thing that contributes to the solution set of > > > > 'How do I find the module I'm looking for?' needs to be kept until it > > > > can be replaced with something of equal or greater value. > > > > > > search.cpan.org seems to be of greater value than the modules list > > > according to most of the people that have chimed in. > > > > Try asking beginners what they think. I believe it is easier for them to > > look at a long list of modules then searching for a specific one, > > particularly because they often don't know what they should be looking > > for. > > The problem is that the list is missing many modules and in some cases it is > missing "the right module" for a particular job while listing other inferior > modules and since no one is adding to the list, this can only get worse. I know that, but what I'm saying is "Let's keep the list updated!" I had already volunteered to brian to do that, and by the same time this whole thing of killing the list has exploded... I agree with you all, I know the list is probably doing more harm then good, but it wasn't like that years ago, and the only reason it is like that now is that the list isn't being updated! If someone keeps it up to date, I think it'll be a good thing for all of us once again. > > Anyway, I like to have a long list of modules to show my Java friends > > and say "see?" > > If we had keywords you could just search on a keyword and show them that > list instead, I don't want to show the results of a search. I want to say "Here is the link to the module list. See how long it is? It contains practically everything you need, doesn't it?" And I also want to be able to look at the list and think of what other things are still lacking... > F -- José Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://natura.di.uminho.pt/~jac signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: Let's eliminate the Module List
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 16:47, Christopher Hicks wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Hugh S. Myers wrote: > > > It seems to me that ANY thing that contributes to the solution set of > > 'How do I find the module I'm looking for?' needs to be kept until it > > can be replaced with something of equal or greater value. > > search.cpan.org seems to be of greater value than the modules list > according to most of the people that have chimed in. Try asking beginners what they think. I believe it is easier for them to look at a long list of modules then searching for a specific one, particularly because they often don't know what they should be looking for. Anyway, I like to have a long list of modules to show my Java friends and say "see?" > > 2. Push hard on the notion of adding a keywords item to the 'standard' > > for pod documentation. > > What should those keywords be? Who decides? I'm personally much more > interested in seeing a dmoz-ish hierarchy so related modules can be easily > found and compared. -- José Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://natura.di.uminho.pt/~jac signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Duplicated modules
> Right, let's JFDI. Anyone want to host a wiki and stick a module authors FAQ on it? If that's the way to go, we're hosting a new wiki right now on http://www.perl-hackers.net/ (check it out) and we could put it there, of course. > Having said that, are we just reinventing Perlmonks? That, I do not know... :-| > Thoughts please. Yeah, thoughts, please :-| jac -- Josà Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Telbit - Tecnologias de InformaÃÃo
Re: Duplicated modules
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 14:50, Andy Lester wrote: > You're asking us? As if the topic hasn't been beaten to death over the > years? Sorry... I didn't know that... :-| Still... if it has been beaten to death over the years, it appears to me it isn't quite dead, right? > Maybe the first thing that should be done about it is to have a FAQ that > addresses all the arguments and discussions. I agree with that... -- Josà Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Telbit - Tecnologias de InformaÃÃo
Duplicated modules
Take a look at the CPAN. Search for "Roman". There's "Roman", "Math::Roman", "Text::Roman", "Convert::Number::Roman", etc... Isn't this duplicated effort? :-| Besides, this may prevent the user from having all the available functionalities without installing all of those modules... :-| And I'm sure this isn't the only case. What can be done about it? If I have an improvement that could go on some of those modules, should I e-mail all of the authors? :-| -- Josà Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Telbit - Tecnologias de InformaÃÃo
Re: Finding installed modules under a given namespace
> Class::Factory::Util might be helpful. It is :-) I can already do what I wanted :-) > -dave Thanks :-) jac -- Josà Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Telbit - Tecnologias de InformaÃÃo
Finding installed modules under a given namespace
I have a module (Lingua::Identify) which needs to be aware of all
installed modules under its namespace (Lingua::Identify::*) and do some
stuff for each of them... kind of like
for (Lingua::Identify::*) { # some stuff here }
I have no idea how to do this, though... :-|
Any hints?
TIA,
jac
--
Josà Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telbit - Tecnologias de InformaÃÃo
too many tests?
Yesterday, just for fun, I coded a module to convert between arabic and
roman numbers (I know there are quite a few, but hey, it was just for
fun).
Once I was done, I couldn't contend myself and I coded a function to
validate if a roman number is indeed a roman number... I did that with a
regex.
Now... wanting to test that function, I did some (1) tests like:
is(validate_roman('XVII'),1);
is(validate_roman('CXXIII'),1);
But I just couldn't stop there... I had to test things like:
isnt(validate_roman('LL'),1);
So what I did was generate all possibles combinations of qw(M D C L X V
I) up to 6 chars, remove the good ones and test them up...
This works fine up to 5 char combinations... but when you get to the
over 900.000 tests for the 6 char ones... argh ;-\
My computer simply froze (2)... and a message stating something like
"Enormous test number seen" kept displaying.
So... is this normal? How would you normally test this kind of thing?
Regards,
jac
(1) - Actually, not just "some"... I tested everything from 1 to 5000
:-|
(2) - I managed to do those tests by separating them in different files
--
Josà Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telbit - Tecnologias de InformaÃÃo
too many tests?
Yesterday, just for fun, I coded a module to convert between arabic and
roman numbers (I know there are quite a few, but hey, it was just for
fun).
Once I was done, I couldn't contend myself and I coded a function to
validate if a roman number is indeed a roman number... I did that with a
regex.
Now... wanting to test that function, I did some (1) tests like:
is(validate_roman('XVII'),1);
is(validate_roman('CXXIII'),1);
But I just couldn't stop there... I had to test things like:
isnt(validate_roman('LL'),1);
So what I did was generate all possibles combinations of qw(M D C L X V
I) up to 6 chars, remove the good ones and test them up...
This works fine up to 5 char combinations... but when you get to the
over 900.000 tests for the 6 char ones... argh ;-\
My computer simply froze (2)... and a message stating something like
"Enormous test number seen" kept displaying.
So... is this normal? How would you normally test this kind of thing?
Regards,
jac
(1) - Actually, not just "some"... I tested everything from 1 to 5000
:-|
(2) - I managed to do those tests by separating them in different files
--
Josà Alves de Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telbit - Tecnologias de InformaÃÃo
