On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 05:05:43PM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> I think the wholesale renaming of t/op/misc as t/run/kill_perl is
> really wrong.
>
> (I think you are reading too much into the leading comments, and other
> people have been reading too little into them.)
>
> t/op/misc has NO
I think the wholesale renaming of t/op/misc as t/run/kill_perl is
really wrong.
(I think you are reading too much into the leading comments, and other
people have been reading too little into them.)
t/op/misc has NOT consistently been the place for core-dumping tests;
it has some yes, but not al
> @@ -739,3 +783,9 @@
> # keep this last - doesn't seem to work otherwise?
This requirement magically went away while I was away?
> eval "a.b.c.d.e.f;sub"
> EXPECT
> +
> + perlbug ID 20010831.001
> +($a, b) = (1, 2);
> +EXPECT
> +Can't modify constant item in list assignment at - line
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 03:15:29AM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > @@ -739,3 +783,9 @@
> > # keep this last - doesn't seem to work otherwise?
>
> This requirement magically went away while I was away?
Oh, I fixed that but forgot to remove the comment.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PRO
Ok. mjd dug out this archeological discovery:
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-12/msg00491.html
About t/op/misc.t. It does what t/run/segfault.t is trying to do, but
better.
In light of that, here's a cleanup.
Added instructions and a better description
