Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-22 Thread Tim Bunce
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:35:49AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:01:26AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: > > > I don't have time in the short term to work on the (albeit fairly > > trivial) change to Storable. If someone can do that and get a new > > release out then I'll look

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-22 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:01:26AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: > I don't have time in the short term to work on the (albeit fairly > trivial) change to Storable. If someone can do that and get a new > release out then I'll look deeper into the performance issues then. In reading this thread over the

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-22 Thread Tim Bunce
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:01:20PM -0700, Ovid wrote: > --- Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'll look into SQLite. > > > > I'd caution against rushing in any particular direction without some > > profiling information to back it up. > > > > Having said that, I'd strongly recommend swit

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-21 Thread Ovid
--- Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll look into SQLite. > > I'd caution against rushing in any particular direction without some > profiling information to back it up. > > Having said that, I'd strongly recommend switching to Storable first. > It did have problems but it's now very ro

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-21 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:38:48PM +1000, Andrew Savige wrote: > Tim Bunce wrote: > > p.s. Could someone suggest a pure-perl module with lots of tests as > > a suitable testbed for Devel::Cover? > > http://search.cpan.org/dist/Acme-EyeDrops has 22 test programs, > 769 tests and no dependencies.

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-21 Thread Andrew Savige
Tim Bunce wrote: > p.s. Could someone suggest a pure-perl module with lots of tests as > a suitable testbed for Devel::Cover? http://search.cpan.org/dist/Acme-EyeDrops has 22 test programs, 769 tests and no dependencies. /-\ http://personals.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Personals New people, new poss

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-21 Thread Tim Bunce
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 11:05:38PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:34:38PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:16:40PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > I wrote "database" in quotes because currently we are talking about a > > > flat file, written using D

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:10:51PM -0700, Ovid wrote: > I'm trying to talk my boss into letting me poke into the internals of > Devel::Cover more, but I doubt that will be approved. If it is, maybe > I can work on this. If you or anyone else does get to look at this the code should all be locali

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-20 Thread Ovid
--- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Initially I wanted something with few, or better yet no dependencies. I > also wanted something that required little or no work when I changed the > internal data structures. Well, SQLite fails the first and *might* fail on the second. On the other h

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:34:38PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:16:40PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I wrote "database" in quotes because currently we are talking about a > > flat file, written using Data::Dumper and eval'd in. I have considered > > other options - spec

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-20 Thread Tony Bowden
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:16:40PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > I wrote "database" in quotes because currently we are talking about a > flat file, written using Data::Dumper and eval'd in. I have considered > other options - specifically YAML and Storable. I have found YAML to be > even slower an

Re: No more code coverage

2003-10-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 12:24:14PM -0700, Ovid wrote: > --- Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, still it would be good to improve the speed of Devel::Cover, > > on my box (lowly 500 Mhz, yes, I could upgrade to 2 Ghz AMD or so :) > > a particulary project takes 33 minutes for one run... not e

No more code coverage

2003-10-20 Thread Ovid
--- Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, still it would be good to improve the speed of Devel::Cover, on my box > (lowly 500 Mhz, yes, I could upgrade to 2 Ghz AMD or so :) a particulary > project takes 33 minutes for one run... not exactly what I call "interactive" > :) Frankly, I think some m