Leif Eriksen wrote:
I'd guess it is because you are seeing the output of the code after it
has been compiled-then-decompiled - it is compiled so it can run and
coverage statistics can be collected, then it is decompiled to relate
coverage stats to code lines. Now there are many ways to write
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Jim Keenan wrote:
Leif Eriksen wrote:
I'd guess it is because you are seeing the output of the code after it
has been compiled-then-decompiled - it is compiled so it can run and
coverage statistics can be collected, then it is decompiled to relate
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:12:16AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
I suppose that's the price you pay for TIMTOWTDI.
[ Is that a Python programmer I hear giggling in the background? ]
Does Python have any equivalent tool to Devel::Cover?
Nicholas Clark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does Python have customizable test suites *at all*?
I dont know about that, but I hear they have the ability to invoke the
debugger from within the code, rather than the other way round like
perl/C/... does
Something like
import pdb
...
pdb.run(statement_to_debug[,
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:00:40 +, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:12:16AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
I suppose that's the price you pay for TIMTOWTDI.
[ Is that a Python programmer I hear giggling in the background? ]
Does Python have any equivalent
I have just noticed an anomalous difference in output between two of the
files created by the Devel::Cover 'cover' utility when run against a
popular Perl module -- and I am wondering whether this difference should
be considered a feature or a bug.
The module in question is Text::Template,
I'd guess it is because you are seeing the output of the code after it
has been compiled-then-decompiled - it is compiled so it can run and
coverage statistics can be collected, then it is decompiled to relate
coverage stats to code lines. Now there are many ways to write code that
compiles to
