I have committed a small set of changes to the svn repository, here are
the details:
For sake of consistency throughout all the tests, I have set the
she-bang line on all to be:
#!perl -w
NOTE: I have not removed any instances of $^W=1 in the tests although
it really is no longer needed.
I
The fact is that not all the tests are consistent, so it is less change
for change-sake and more for consistencies-sake.
Tim has decided now anyway
On May 11, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
It's sufficient. And no, don't remove it and don't change to "use
warnings:";
Tim.
So I will
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 15:19, stevan little wrote:
> If 5.6.1 is the official minimum, then maybe this brings back up the -w
> vs. warnings issue? Since Ovid pointed out that 5.6 was the minimum for
> the warnings pragma, and 5.6.1 is your "official" minimum, it seems
> maybe the choice is back
If 5.6.1 is the official minimum, then maybe this brings back up the -w
vs. warnings issue? Since Ovid pointed out that 5.6 was the minimum for
the warnings pragma, and 5.6.1 is your "official" minimum, it seems
maybe the choice is back on the table.
Tim, its your baby, what do you say?
Steve
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:44:39PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> A question for the class:
>
> Is specifying the -w flag in the she-bang line sufficient? Or should we
> also include $^W = 1 at the top of every file as well?
It's sufficient. And no, don't remove it and don't change to "use warnin
Tim,
I see a few issues crop up with -T in the she-bang line (I made the
change to my working copy to see), but when I do 'prove -T' I see the
same issues crop up, plus then the zvpp* stuff fails (it basically
fails to load the regular test file).
I think this makes sense, the zppp* files shou
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:13:19PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> On May 11, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
>
> >>One concern just popped into my head... I'd like to not have to
> >>depend on very recent versions of Test::More. Can you look into
> >>that and make recommendations about what ve
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:48:47PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:58:51PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so.
>
> I'd like to. I'd like every module to think about taint-safety. DBI
> es
A question for the class:
Is specifying the -w flag in the she-bang line sufficient? Or should we
also include $^W = 1 at the top of every file as well?
Steve
On May 11, 2004, at 5:39 PM, Ovid wrote:
--- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If this will break things prior to 5.6 then I rev
--- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this will break things prior to 5.6 then I reverse my proposal and
> say that we should *not* use the warnings pragma and instead use the -w
> flag.
I always find it easier to roll back unwritten code :)
Cheers,
Ovid
=
Silence is Evil
As I said, my perl experience only goes back to 5.6 so I have never
known a world without the warnings pragma :)
If this will break things prior to 5.6 then I reverse my proposal and
say that we should *not* use the warnings pragma and instead use the -w
flag.
Steve
On May 11, 2004, at 5:26 P
--- stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would also like to propose that we remove all -w flags, and convert
> them to use the warnings pragma.
Does that mean you don't want to support versions of Perl prior to 5.6? I would think
that should
be up to Tim.
Cheers,
Ovid
=
Silence is
Andy, Tim,
I think Andy is right, we should use the -T flag.
I would also like to propose that we remove all -w flags, and convert
them to use the warnings pragma. I assume this will be backwards
compatible enough, but my perl experience only goes back to 5.6 so I
may be missing something.
Do
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:47:46PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> I've committed my t/41 and t/42 changes to subversion. They are not the
> same as what I submitted to the list.
>
> > Is there any reason to now use skip_all? (Remember, you're wearing
> > the official "Test Expert" hat now so you nee
On May 11, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
I've committed my t/41 and t/42 changes to subversion. They are not
the
same as what I submitted to the list.
Yes, that slightly confused me, which is why I asked. I assumed there
was a reason why you had chosen to not use skip_all, so I thought I
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:58:51PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so.
I'd like to. I'd like every module to think about taint-safety. DBI
especially, since we're dealing with tainted data if it comes from a DB,
I've committed my t/41 and t/42 changes to subversion. They are not the
same as what I submitted to the list.
> Is there any reason to now use skip_all? (Remember, you're wearing
> the official "Test Expert" hat now so you need to weigh up the
> issues and make recommendations :)
We can't use sk
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:58:51PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
> Tim, Andy,
>
> Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so.
>
> Also, i noticed in the most recently checked in versions, that the
> 'skip_all' code was not included from the patches Andy sent for
> 41prof
Tim, Andy,
Should we put the -T flag in all the test files? I can do that if so.
Also, i noticed in the most recently checked in versions, that the
'skip_all' code was not included from the patches Andy sent for
41prof_dump.t and 42prof_data.t. Are we not using 'skip_all'? If so, I
will remov
On Mon 10 May 2004 19:40, stevan little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have committed my first set of changes to the DBI svn repository. I
> am mostly still working on converting the scripts to use Test::More,
> but I have managed to slip in some additional tests here and there. The
> changes ar
20 matches
Mail list logo
