Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-21 Thread gregames
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: * isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors Have you had a chance to run it through the perl-framework testsuite? If so I'd give it +.5. Does the perl test suite check error handling at all? (just curious) Gr

Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-20 Thread Jeff Trawick
Jim Jagielski wrote: Jeff, would it be OK if we skip this for 1.3.29 and potentially add it in for 1.3.30? yessir; I think that's the right thing to do

Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > At 01:53 PM 10/20/2003, Cliff Woolley wrote: > >On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >>* isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors > >>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> +1: jeff, jim > > > >I looked at it and it seemed

Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-20 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 01:53 PM 10/20/2003, Cliff Woolley wrote: >On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >>* isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors >>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> +1: jeff, jim > >I looked at it and it seemed reasonable but it stretches far enough beyond

Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-20 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: >* isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > +1: jeff, jim I looked at it and it seemed reasonable but it stretches far enough beyond the bounds of my knowledge of its implications that

Any votes on this??

2003-10-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
* isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +1: jeff, jim -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society tha