I have isolated a case where perl is happy but D::C segfaults
sort.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
my %sort = (B => \&backwards,
F => \&forwards);
sub backwards {
return $b cmp $a;
}
sub forwards {
return $a cmp $b;
}
sub GetAlgorithm {
my ($alg)
Hi Ian,
Test::Unit was a nice idea, but it's been abandoned.
Test::Inline seems nice, but it doesn't give you the full benefits of
Test::Class (convenient setup, teardown, inheritance, etc.).
Test::Class is great. I'm quite happy with it. If you're more
comfortable with XUnit style testing, th
Hi all,
Long before prove came along, I used a program named "grind" to manage
my test suites. One thing that grind had that prove does not was the
ability to specify *which* tests to run. grind did it via shell
expansion and that was terrible. Andy sensibly did not include that in
prove.
I wa
I'm taking a software development class this semester which will involve
writing extensive object-oriented code. My partner and I are trying to
decide whether to use Test::Unit, ::Class, or ::Inline for our test scripts.
I can see the advantages of Test::Class in terms of object heirarchy,
but
Per this message from Schwern
(http://www.mail-archive.com/perl-qa@perl.org/msg03122.html) on how to
trigger custom behavior for individual tests:
For individual failures, put a wrapper around
Test::Builder->ok(). Use Hook::LexWrap, Sub::Uplevel
or Aspects to preserve the call stack.
Well
"Andy Lester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> There's a new Phalanx article on perl.com:
> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2005/01/13/phalanx.html
>
> Let's hope we get an influx of Hoplites!
>
> xoxo,
> Andy
>
Hey Andy,
I am new to Perl. If you went by the "Perl Medic" bo
