Re: CPANDB - was: Module::Dependency 1.84
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nobody would care about dependencies if they never failed (except for the issue of installation time). I have a couple of clients that are very skittish about outside dependencies in general. They have to get thrid-party code legally approved, etc, and since they can already use Perl they don't need any special permission to use those modules. One client specifically wasn't allowed from CPAN (although we solved that with a minicpan on a disk). I don't make up these rules, but they are out there. For the CPANDB, as long as I can read the data it in my own program, I don't much care what CPAN::Index uses.
Re: Fixing SKIP:
On 7/15/06, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't particularly like that this is a silent failure, but I'm not sure of a robust way to fix that. In any event, I reread the docs a couple of times before I realized I was being stupid. That suggests to me that this little nit could be improved. Or warnings turned on. :P But the current warning is unintentional. I'll slap in a thing which checks that the second argument is numeric.
Re: Fw: Fixing SKIP:
On 7/15/06, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the reasoning behind accepting an array, anyway? Convenience. You almost always use can_ok() with a list of methods. It also makes calculating the plan a little easier for it to be one test. I recall waffling around on the interface.
Re: Fw: Fixing SKIP:
On 7/15/06, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Worse, it's inconsistent with the rest of the API: ok$foo == $bar, $REASON; is$foo, $bar, $REASON; is_deeply $foo, $bar, $REASON; And then this: skip $REASON, $num; Sadly, it would be hard to change that since so many people use the wrong syntax. Realize that $num is optional. The alternative is: skip undef, $REASON;
[ANNOUNCE] Test::Builder/More/Simple 0.64 (Emergency release)
Miyagawa noticed that the changes to Test::Builder::Tester's test_fail() in 0.63 broke Test::Exception and probably plenty others. The change broke backwards compat and should not have been accepted. So here's an emergency release to fix that. 0.64 Sun Jul 16 02:47:29 PDT 2006 * 0.63's change to test_fail() broke backwards compatibility. They have been removed for the time being. test_pass() went with it. This is [rt.cpan.org 11317] and [rt.cpan.org 11319]. - skip() will now warn if you get the args backwards. 0.63 Sun Jul 9 02:36:36 PDT 2006 * Fixed can_ok() to gracefully handle no class name. Submitted by Pete Krawczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Implemented by Richard Foley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [rt.cpan.org 15654] * Added test_pass() to Test::Builder::Tester rather than having to call test_out(ok 1 - foo). [EMAIL PROTECTED] [rt.cpan.org 11317] * test_fail() now accepts a test diagnostic rather than having to call test_out() separately. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [rt.cpan.org 11319] - Changed Test::Builder::Tester docs to show best practice using test_fail() and test_pass(). - isnt_num() doc example wrongly showed is_num(). [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fixed a minor typo in the BAIL_OUT() docs. Jeff Deifik - Removed the LICENSE field from the Makefile.PL as the release of MakeMaker with that feature has been delayed.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Builder/More/Simple 0.64 (Emergency release)
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 02:53:08AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: Miyagawa noticed that the changes to Test::Builder::Tester's test_fail() in 0.63 broke Test::Exception and probably plenty others. The change broke backwards compat and should not have been accepted. Bleadperl has been upgraded to Test-Simple-0.64 with change #28586. Thanks, Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fetching module version from the command line
David Wheeler wrote:
On Jul 12, 2006, at 03:41, Gabor Szabo wrote:
perl -MModule -e'print $Module::VERSION'
I have this alias set up:
function pv () { perl -M$1 -le print $1-VERSION; }
I think that calling -VERSION is more correct.
I am sure this discussion has happened in the past and in the archive
you could probably find what was suggested last time.
perl -MDBI\ 999
DBI version 999 required--this is only version 1.50.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted.
Which is the same as writing
use DBI 999;
and perl will call DBI-VERSION(999);
Graham.
Re: fetching module version from the command line
* Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-17 02:00]:
perl -MDBI\ 999
DBI version 999 required--this is only version 1.50.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted.
You can use an equals sign instead of a space, there, which makes
it a little easier to type:
perl -MDBI=666 -e1
Regards,
--
#Aristotle
*AUTOLOAD=*_;sub _{s/(.*)::(.*)/print$2,(,$\/, )[defined wantarray]/e;$1};
Just-another-Perl-hacker;
Re: fetching module version from the command line
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:24:37 +0200, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: * Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-17 02:00]: perl -MDBI\ 999 DBI version 999 required--this is only version 1.50. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted. You can use an equals sign instead of a space, there, which makes it a little easier to type: perl -MDBI=666 -e1 This is dangerous to believe, witness % perl -Mstrict\ 999 strict version 999 required--this is only version 1.03. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted. zsh: exit 9 perl -Mstrict\ 999 % perl -Mstrict=999 Unknown 'strict' tag(s) '999' at - line 0 BEGIN failed--compilation aborted. zsh: exit 9 perl -Mstrict=999 -- andreas
Re: [Slightly OT] Understanding Software Licences [was Re: Proposal Suggestion - Test::Run [was Re: [Israel.pm] Fwd: Call for proposals -- Perl Foundation Grants]]
Shlomi Fish wrote: On Friday 07 July 2006 18:39, Andy Lester wrote: Those who disagree with Shlomi on licenses are small-headed and ignorant. Got it. Keep digging that hole, Mr. Fish! That's not what I said or meant. What I meant was that someone here said and I quote: http://www.mail-archive.com/perl-qa%40perl.org/msg06038.html Personally, I'm happy enough to sign my modules as licenced under the same terms as Perl itself, thereby letting other people deal with a matter for which I have next to no interest in. Hey! That was me! I recognise my hand-writing. My own take on this is that even if your code was better, I wouldn't use it, since I couldn't be sure that my use of it may in some way violate its terms. At least I know where I stand with the GPL and AL. Life is short, and the less I have to think about licensing issues, the better. From my interpretation, what he said was I don't care to understand licenses enough so I don't want to be bothere with it. Now I think this is a rather small-minded approach to this issue, which I think is very bad. Perhaps, the response to Ovid about it instead of this message was not appropriate, or I may have misunderstood what Ovid said. Ah, that would explain why my hat keeps falling down onto my nose. It was a rational decision that makes perfect economic sense (or is that an oxymoron). If I may reformulate my position, it would be more I have expended a certain effort to understand licenses, but they are nearly completely opaque to me, since they are written for a legal audience. I therefore choose to defer to the judgment of others who have spent considerable effort on this issue, thereby freeing me to devote my attention to other matters. Rather than choose to spend my insufficient spare time learning more about law, I choose to spend it writing the occasional module that is released onto CPAN under the same terms as Perl itself. Thanks to the efforts of others, I can stand on their shoulders, knowing that they have thought about and taken care of licensing issues for me. I thank you for alerting me to the MIT/X11 license. I now know it exists. That doesn't mean I'm going to start hunting down information about it, but if I come across a Great Computer Language Licensing Shoot-out, I will pay more attention to it than I might have otherwise. And my small mind believes that this is about as much as you can hope for from most people. David -- hope still, a little resistance always maybe stubborn tiny lights vs. clustering darkness forever ok?
Re: Fw: Fixing SKIP:
I do not think that prototype means what you think it means. It means what I think it means. Same syntax as we have currently, no. You would have to do this: my @methods = qw(foo bar baz) can_ok($object, @methods, 'reason') Instead of: can_ok($object, qw(foo bar baz), 'reason') Note that in my original post I specified array instead of list for a reason :) Regards, Jonathan Rockway signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
