On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:47:39AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:16:00PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
Tim, Andy,
Could you take a look at this problem with threaded perl:
t/10examp.ok 165/252Invalid value for shared scalar at
Tim,
Not having a threaded version of perl handy right now (I am home, it is
at work), I cannot test this right now. The changes I had made were
only to change a few tests to 'cmp_ok' and add test names, which should
not affect things. However in the last update (prior to this one), I
did
Not having a threaded version of perl handy right now (I am home, it
is at work), I cannot test this right now. The changes I had made were
only to change a few tests to 'cmp_ok' and add test names, which
should not affect things. However in the last update (prior to this
one), I did change
Andy,
This stringification problem may be a culprit, as we stringify 2
objects to test against in the subroutine which is run in each thread.
But that stringification was there before in the old test (1.42), so I
think maybe this is a different problem.
Steve
On May 15, 2004, at 2:17 PM, Andy
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 04:22:05PM -0400, stevan little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This stringification problem may be a culprit, as we stringify 2
objects to test against in the subroutine which is run in each thread.
But that stringification was there before in the old test (1.42), so I
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:23:40PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
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
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 need to
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 version of
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, 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 on
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
