Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
>> Ouch. Please drop this patch; I'll resubmit when I feel confident
>> about my change.
>
> No, let's not do that. I will forget and end up spending time to
> read the same patch again.
All three look good to me. Thanks for doing this: I le
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> sub foo ($) { my ($arg) = @_; print "$arg\n"; }
>> sub bar { my ($arg) = @_; print "$arg\n"; }
>> my @baz = (100, 101, 102);
>> foo @baz; # says 3
>> bar @baz; # says 100
>
> Ouch. Please drop this patch; I'll resubm
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> sub foo ($) { my ($arg) = @_; print "$arg\n"; }
> sub bar { my ($arg) = @_; print "$arg\n"; }
> my @baz = (100, 101, 102);
> foo @baz; # says 3
> bar @baz; # says 100
Ouch. Please drop this patch; I'll resubmit when I feel confident
about my change.
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> Running perlcritic with gentle severity reports six problems. The
> following lists the line numbers on which the problems occur, along
> with a description of the problem. This patch fixes them all,
Thanks.
> after
> carefully considering the consequences.
Hm
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Junio: In future, please tell me explicitly that you're expecting a
> re-roll with an updated commit message. It wasn't obvious to me at
> all.
When there are questions in response to a patch, there are two
possibilities:
* temporary brainfart --- sorry for the
Running perlcritic with gentle severity reports six problems. The
following lists the line numbers on which the problems occur, along
with a description of the problem. This patch fixes them all, after
carefully considering the consequences.
516: Contrary to common belief, subroutine prototypes
6 matches
Mail list logo
