* David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-28T22:39:01]
> Is there a de facto standard for custom extensions to META.yml? (I
> didn't see one in the spec.) An example might be fields beginning
> with a capital letter or "X-foo" style extensions. E.g.
Why not:
extensions:
CPAN::Reporter:
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-02 22:35]:
> Joshua ben Jore wrote:
> > Does defined( Scalar::Util::blessed )have cooties? Its the
> > only predicate you've ever had that actually works.
>
> It requires depending on an XS module if you want compatibility
> pre-5.8.1.
Which is the
Adrian Howard wrote:
[snip]
Adrian: How about posting this part on
http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/Main_Page?
For more general testing discussions I'd recommend joining all of:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You also might want to look at all or some of:
* http
Joshua ben Jore wrote:
> Does defined( Scalar::Util::blessed )have cooties? Its the only
> predicate you've ever had that actually works.
It requires depending on an XS module if you want compatibility pre-5.8.1.
I have to worry about stuff like that.
On Friday 02 March 2007 08:27, Joshua ben Jore wrote:
> Does defined( Scalar::Util::blessed )have cooties? Its the only
> predicate you've ever had that actually works.
Sometimes I want to detect class methods too.
Y'know, at some point it's worth saying "Here's how this works. Here are the
re
On 3/2/07, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> chromatic wrote:
>>> On Thursday 01 March 2007 17:46, Adam Kennedy wrote:
>>>
Actually, isn't UNIVERSAL::can($x, 'can') still valid? I seem to
remember
On 1 Mar 2007, at 16:42, Andrew Gianni wrote:
[snip]
In this situation, we would still like something in place to ensure
that
altering the construction of the business rules doesn't cause
regression in
the application, but we can't (or I'd certainly rather not) simply
write
unit tests for. I
Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> chromatic wrote:
>>> On Thursday 01 March 2007 17:46, Adam Kennedy wrote:
>>>
Actually, isn't UNIVERSAL::can($x, 'can') still valid? I seem to
remember that at one point it was considered the only valid use of
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> chromatic wrote:
>> On Thursday 01 March 2007 17:46, Adam Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, isn't UNIVERSAL::can($x, 'can') still valid? I seem to
>>> remember that at one point it was considered the only valid use of
>>> UNVERSAL::can directly.
>>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Moin.
On Friday 02 March 2007 08:53:43 demerphq wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 99.999% of the time you do not want to really know how something is
> > > implemented, you want to remain ignorant.
> >
> > I concur, whi
On 2 Mar 2007, at 00:35, Adam Kennedy wrote:
[snip]
Well, except you aren't supposed to do that, because if ->isa can
be overloaded, it can also die or throw an exception. So eval
{ $obj->isa($class) } falsely ignores errors.
[snip]
That, of course, depends on whether you want to ignore err
On Friday 02 March 2007 00:53, demerphq wrote:
*snip good discussion*
> Now if there was an ->implements() utility function as well as the
> ->isa() funcation, then I think IO::Handle would contrive to ensure
> that IO::String->new(\$string)->implements('IO::Handle') would return
> true even thou
On 3/2/07, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 99.999% of the time you do not want to really know how something is
> implemented, you want to remain ignorant.
I concur, which is what really pisses me off them
IO::String->new(\$string)->isa('IO::Handle') returns false, because the
author be
13 matches
Mail list logo
