Object which stringifies to empty string
is definitely not the same as empty string (the former is true value
while latter is not).
Yes, except that it is a flawed assumption that folks check for
truthiness of $@. In fact any code that does this (if ($@) { ... }) is
arguably wrong. The only
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Yes, except that it is a flawed assumption that folks check for
truthiness of $@. In fact any code that does this (if ($@) { ... }) is
arguably wrong. The only correct way to check for an exception is (if
($@ eq '') { ... } ) after an eval just took place.
So the
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:49:18AM +, Dave Howorth wrote:
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Yes, except that it is a flawed assumption that folks check for
truthiness of $@. In fact any code that does this (if ($@) { ... }) is
arguably wrong. The only correct way to check for an exception is (if
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 09:26:24PM +0400, Konstantin A. Pustovalov wrote:
On 20.01.2013 23:11, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:09:48PM +1100, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:30:52PM +0400, Konstantin A. Pustovalov wrote:
Hello list!
I'm using
Hi!
Sorry for being silent. Loong russian holidays, you know )
But I have investigated a little. DBIC seems to not notice the
exception if it (exeption) stringifies to zero length string. That
was OK for my code since all error info was coded into exception
type. Till DBIC upgrade. The fix was
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:23:51AM +0400, Konstantin A. Pustovalov wrote:
Hi!
Sorry for being silent. Loong russian holidays, you know )
But I have investigated a little. DBIC seems to not notice the
exception if it (exeption) stringifies to zero length string. That
was OK for my code
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:09:48PM +1100, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:30:52PM +0400, Konstantin A. Pustovalov wrote:
Hello list!
I'm using exception_action feature. Some of my tests fail after
upgrading 0.08196 - 0.08204
I have reduced test case to the following:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 07:31:27AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Peter Rabbitson rabbit+d...@rabbit.uswrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:30:52PM +0400, Konstantin A. Pustovalov wrote:
Hello list!
I'm using exception_action feature. Some of my tests fail
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Peter Rabbitson rabbit+d...@rabbit.uswrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:30:52PM +0400, Konstantin A. Pustovalov wrote:
Hello list!
I'm using exception_action feature. Some of my tests fail after
upgrading 0.08196 - 0.08204
I have reduced test case to
Hello list!
I'm using exception_action feature. Some of my tests fail after
upgrading 0.08196 - 0.08204
I have reduced test case to the following: http://paste.scsys.co.uk/217862
exception_action is never get called in my setup. Am I doing something
wrong or is it intended behavior?
Thanx
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:30:52PM +0400, Konstantin A. Pustovalov wrote:
Hello list!
I'm using exception_action feature. Some of my tests fail after
upgrading 0.08196 - 0.08204
I have reduced test case to the following: http://paste.scsys.co.uk/217862
exception_action is never get called
11 matches
Mail list logo
