On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:12:24PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh. You planted that bomb, dude. Any excuse I have to bump things
to 5.006 I've been taking and saying because Schwern says so.
(CPAN::Reporter and
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:12:24PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
(CPAN::Reporter and deps are probably the exception and only because
Slaven has sent me so many patches that I feel I owe it to him to
support his Quixotic mission to smoke 5.005.)
Certainly, I'd have a
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:29:57AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:12:24PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
Certainly, I'd have a higher CPANTS score if I could start adding use
warnings to my code. ;-)
Wouldn't it be simpler to send a patch
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The correct solution (which also doesn't require changes to
CPANTS) is called warnings::compat. Assuming you actually care
that much…
Assuming I don't mind adding a dependency that is only needed for perl
5.6. Or
* Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-10 13:50]:
Oh, but they *could* have them.
And I think that is a perfect solution. CPANTS should check
whether modules have a shebang line, and if so whether it
contains -w. If it does then the author has asserted that the
module runs cleanly with
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:01:56PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-10 13:50]:
Oh, but they *could* have them.
And I think that is a perfect solution. CPANTS should check
whether modules have a shebang line, and if so whether it
contains -w.
# from Nicholas Clark
# on Wednesday 10 September 2008 08:25:
Problem is, the shebang line doesn???t actually *do* anything.
The correct solution (which also doesn???t require changes to
CPANTS) is called warnings::compat. Assuming you actually care
that much???
I don't agree. I'm with
On Sep 10, 2008, at 10:30, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Yes. Please let's not start cutting the ends off of the ham just so
we
can get mom's old pan out of the attic.
Why is there a ham in the pot in the attic? Must be a bit rotten.
Best,
David
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Eric Wilhelm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If CPANTS can find the -w in the tests or whatever and the META.yml says
5.6... (Because enabling warnings in *everyone else's* code is a good
way to placate a static kwalitee scanner?) I give up.
I don't think people
# from David Golden
# on Wednesday 10 September 2008 11:00:
If CPANTS can find the -w in the tests or whatever and the META.yml
says 5.6... (Because enabling warnings in *everyone else's* code is
a good way to placate a static kwalitee scanner?) I give up.
I don't think people realized that
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from David Golden
# on Wednesday 10 September 2008 11:00:
If CPANTS can find the -w in the tests or whatever and the META.yml
says 5.6... (Because enabling warnings in *everyone else's* code is
a good way to placate a static kwalitee scanner?) I give up.
I don't
* Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-10 17:30]:
Why should I add a dependency to correct code to placate the
CPANTS game?
If you don’t care enough to add a dependency, why care at all?
:-)
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:03:25 -0700, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
I've uploaded a new alpha to deal with this.
It still breaks Sub::Uplevel. Sub::Uplevel has lots of dependencies. I
won't smoke a Test-Simple that breaks Sub-Uplevel. Or if the fault
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 15:10:13 Michael G Schwern wrote:
The goal of the test seems to be to detect that a customized caller()
routine is not blown away by Sub::Uplevel. A much safer way to do that is
to have your customized caller() just flick a file-scoped variable when it
gets
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 15:10:13 Michael G Schwern wrote:
The goal of the test seems to be to detect that a customized caller()
routine is not blown away by Sub::Uplevel. A much safer way to do that is
to have your
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taking a knife to CORE::caller() and then calling someone else's functions and
expecting them to work is not a good idea.
The problem is that we want Sub::Uplevel to do what people expect if
they have already taken a
David Golden wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taking a knife to CORE::caller() and then calling someone else's functions
and
expecting them to work is not a good idea.
The problem is that we want Sub::Uplevel to do what people expect if
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Golden wrote:
The problem is that we want Sub::Uplevel to do what people expect if
they have already taken a knife to CORE::caller for some stupid
reason, since nothing in Perl stops them from doing so.
Indeed,
18 matches
Mail list logo
