On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:57:01AM +0100, Richard Clamp wrote:
> Tony, can you give me feedback on if 0.06 is now more like what you
> hacked 0.02 into, or does it still need that separate _load_code
> interface?
I think it does. Perhaps, I haven't quite delved deeply enough, but the
issue I face
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 05:50:28PM +0200, Tels wrote:
> Did I explain it better now?
Yes. Actually in retrospect you covered it well enough before, I was
just being dense. Maths never was my strong suit.
> No problem with the name ;) (Could have an uncovered() alias, though ;)
Done. It gave
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:30:24PM +0100, Richard Clamp wrote:
> > Beside that, it seems not be able to find doc paragraphs for multiply
> > functions like this:
> >
> > =head2 get_foo/get_blah/get_baz
> >
> > These functions get you an item back of the number and type you specified:
> True, t
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 07:07:42PM +0200, Tels wrote:
> Attached is a script to test all modules in a dist,
Attachment error #1
> I think a "make
> pod-cover" and "make test-cover" would be cool, but I am not able to do such
> a beast.
Me also
(ok, I know there's 0.04 now, but I've deleted that announcement)
The thing I'd *really* like to see in this now is the ability to run
it on arbitrary code - not just installed modules. i.e. I want to add
it to a 'build' process, that will automatically reject code that isn't
fully documented -
