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
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
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
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
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
* 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