On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:23:00 +0100, Jenda Krynicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Turn on use strict for starters, and use warnings. you won't want to
> > run with them, if you have things that you know will cause errors, but
> > they'll give you some other input.
"Jenda Krynicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You sure? Could you show us a complete example ? And tell us which
> perl did you get this behaviour from?
>
> Tried all combinations of
> use strict;
> use warnings;
> use diagnostics;
> and never received a word about a missing cu
"Graeme St. Clair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Clutching at straws... Is it possible that in the diff's your eye slid past
> a curly bracket that should have been square, but in classic fashion, you
> saw what you expected to see?
Very possible but it turned out to be just a plain } and can't
"Jenda Krynicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your editor supports finding or highlighting the matching brace,
> try to add a closing } or ] and see where does the editor think the
> matching one is. If nothing more then at least you should be able to
> find out which one is "missing".
Haa
From: Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Turn on use strict for starters, and use warnings. you won't want to
> run with them, if you have things that you know will cause errors, but
> they'll give you some other input. Keep a special eye out for "Bare
> word found where $x expected" errors. The thing to
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:49:52 -0800, Graeme St. Clair
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'm working on a program with some 433 lines of perl code.
> > Some where in the course of editing today I've run up on an error that
> > I need some way to debug.
>
From: Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm working on a program with some 433 lines of perl code.
> Some where in the course of editing today I've run up on an error that
> I need some way to debug.
>
> the code includes
>use diagnostics;
>
> And the message I get when I try to run it:
From: Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm working on a program with some 433 lines of perl code.
> Some where in the course of editing today I've run up on an error that
> I need some way to debug.
>
> the code includes
>use diagnostics;
>
> And the message I get when I try to run it:
>
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I'm not sure how we are getting derailed here... The question posted
> is asking if there is a way to get a better idea what is wrong with
> this script from perl itself.
Yes. Start ripping out chunks a
Jonathan Paton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The error output tells me that perl has found a difference in the
>> number of closing and opening items. Can I get finer resolution
>> somehow?
>
> Not sure, but you would think there was.
>
> A consistant coding style (including indenting) helps ma
Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just because a overlong scope doesn't make Perl explode doesn't mean
> that it is something that most people can realistically get their head
> around.
Thanks.
I'm not sure how we are getting derailed here... The question posted
is asking if there is
> The error output tells me that perl has found a difference in the
> number of closing and opening items. Can I get finer resolution
> somehow?
Not sure, but you would think there was.
A consistant coding style (including indenting) helps make most
problems easy to spot. You could also diff a
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Lawrence Statton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well .. perhaps this is $DEITY's way of telling that having a single
> > scope block that is 433 lines long is a bad idea.
>
> Naa, I have longer scripts that don't have this problem. It should run
"Charles K. Clarkson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Harry Putnam <> wrote:
>
> : I've found over time that one or another of my editors will
> : spot a missmatched syntax element with its syntax coloring.
> :
> : Either Emacs in cperl mode or vim always helps find something
> : like this.
> :
>
Harry Putnam <> wrote:
: I've found over time that one or another of my editors will
: spot a missmatched syntax element with its syntax coloring.
:
: Either Emacs in cperl mode or vim always helps find something
: like this.
:
: This time I can find no lapse in the coloring, and taking the
: a
Lawrence Statton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well .. perhaps this is $DEITY's way of telling that having a single
> scope block that is 433 lines long is a bad idea.
Naa, I have longer scripts that don't have this problem.
It should run unless there is an actual syntax error.
--
To unsubscri
> I'm working on a program with some 433 lines of perl code.
> Some where in the course of editing today I've run up on an error that
> I need some way to debug.
>
Well .. perhaps this is $DEITY's way of telling that having a single
scope block that is 433 lines long is a bad idea.
One of the un
17 matches
Mail list logo
