> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:56:15 -0400, Nigel Horne
> said:
>> [master 4c1b901] Nigel Horne had a broken perl that couldn't cope with
>> 0+(1<0), so the question came up why Version.pm has the 0+; since I do not
>> see any reason it's being removed; all tests pass
>> 1 files changed,
[master 4c1b901] Nigel Horne had a broken perl that couldn't cope with 0+(1<0),
so the question came up why Version.pm has the 0+; since I do not see any reason
it's being removed; all tests pass
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
When will this be published? I thought fr
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:55:08PM +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
> In all honesty I doubt that anyone on perlbug will care that much about
> 5.8.8 - they'll consider it too old.
Not necessarily - and especially if you can also find the same bug in
5.10 and 5.12.
perl -V should tell you exactly how
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Andreas J. Koenig
wrote:
> [master 4c1b901] Nigel Horne had a broken perl that couldn't cope with
> 0+(1<0), so the question came up why Version.pm has the 0+; since I do not
> see any reason it's being removed; all tests pass
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:26:40 -0400, David Golden said:
> Andreas -- Can we find a workaround in CPAN::Version? Do you really
> need "0+" in front of that logic? It seems superfluous to me, but you
> rarely do things like that without reason.
[master 4c1b901] Nigel Horne had a broke
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Nigel Horne wrote:
> In all honesty I doubt that anyone on perlbug will care that much about
> 5.8.8 - they'll consider it too old.
Agreed.
Andreas -- Can we find a workaround in CPAN::Version? Do you really
need "0+" in front of that logic? It seems superfluou
On 20/09/10 20:24, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:25:05 +0100, Nigel Horne said:
> $ perl -e 'printf "%g\n", 0 + (1< 0)'
> 3.33761e-308
> $
Thank you, Nigel, for your patience. This result is really pretty darn
wrong, isn't it? There definitely is something broke
On 20/09/10 20:41, Serguei Trouchelle wrote:
Nigel Horne wrote:
$ perl -e 'printf "%f\n", 0 + (1 < 0)'
0.00
$ perl -e 'printf "%g\n", 0 + (1 < 0)'
3.33761e-308
$
What does your "perl -V" say?
Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 8 subversion 8) configuration:
Platform:
osname=n
Nigel Horne wrote:
$ perl -e 'printf "%f\n", 0 + (1 < 0)'
0.00
$ perl -e 'printf "%g\n", 0 + (1 < 0)'
3.33761e-308
$
What does your "perl -V" say?
--
Serguei Trouchelle
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:25:05 +0100, Nigel Horne
> said:
> $ perl -e 'printf "%g\n", 0 + (1 < 0)'
> 3.33761e-308
> $
Thank you, Nigel, for your patience. This result is really pretty darn
wrong, isn't it? There definitely is something broken in your perl or
libraries, as David al
On 20/09/10 12:20, David Golden wrote:
The culprit appears to be this:
cpan[2]> ! printf "%g\n", 0 + (1< 0)
3.33761e-308
The code is doing something equivalent -- though I'm not sure why.
But perl is adding 0 + 0 and getting 3.34e-308 when it numifies it.
That seems like a bug in pe
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Nigel Horne wrote:
> if((a - b) <= 0.1)
>
> I think that the author of this module has forgotten this basic principal.
The comparison is between "1.18" and "0.99" which would not give that problem.
The culprit appears to be this:
cpan[2]> ! printf "%
cpan[1]> ! use CPAN::Reporter
cpan[1]> o debug Version
Options set for debugging (16384):
Version (16384)
cpan[2]> ! print CPAN::Version->vlt( $CPAN::Reporter::VERSION, 0.99 ), "\n"
Debug(Version,Version.pm,11,[Version,Version.pm,60,vcmp]): l[1.1801] r[0.99]
Debug(Version,Version.pm,18,
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:39:52 -0400, David Golden said:
>> cpan[3]> ! print CPAN::Version->vlt( $CPAN::Reporter::VERSION, 0.99 ), "\n"
>> 3.3376107877608e-308
>> cpan[3]> ! print CPAN::Version->vlt( CPAN::Reporter->VERSION, 0.99 ), "\n"
>> 3.3376107877608e-308
> WTF?!? That looks like
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Nigel Horne wrote:
> cpan[3]> ! print "$_\n" for @INC
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.8/pmax-netbsd
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.8
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/pmax-netbsd
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl
> /home/njh/bin
O
On 19/09/10 20:02, David Golden wrote:
It's no better. All tests now say CPAN::Reporter 0.99 is required, but I
only have 1.1801.
Next rounds of diagnosis:
* Have you tried from a fresh CPAN shell session? (e.g. exit "cpan"
and run "cpan" again)
Yes
* Do you have version.pm installed?
* F
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Nigel Horne wrote:
"Reporting on the 'pl' phase requires CPAN::Reporter 0.99, but you only
have
version 1.18. Only 'test' phase reports will be sent."
>>>
>>> That's really bizarre. I would check that CPAN is up to date, beyond
>>> that, I'm stumpe
I have been seeing a lot of the following recently, for example on a
NetBSD
5.8.8 Pmax machine:
"Reporting on the 'pl' phase requires CPAN::Reporter 0.99, but you
only have
version 1.18. Only 'test' phase reports will be sent."
That's really bizarre. I would check that CPAN is up to date,
On 19/09/10 15:46, David Golden wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Nigel Horne wrote:
I have been seeing a lot of the following recently, for example on a NetBSD
5.8.8 Pmax machine:
"Reporting on the 'pl' phase requires CPAN::Reporter 0.99, but you only have
version 1.18. Only 'test
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Nigel Horne wrote:
> I have been seeing a lot of the following recently, for example on a NetBSD
> 5.8.8 Pmax machine:
>
> "Reporting on the 'pl' phase requires CPAN::Reporter 0.99, but you only have
> version 1.18. Only 'test' phase reports will be sent."
That'
I have been seeing a lot of the following recently, for example on a
NetBSD 5.8.8 Pmax machine:
"Reporting on the 'pl' phase requires CPAN::Reporter 0.99, but you only
have version 1.18. Only 'test' phase reports will be sent."
What can I do to fix it?
-Nigel
--
Nigel Horne. Arranger, Adju
21 matches
Mail list logo
