Hi all, It occurs to me that the uses for this could extend outside testing. Looking at CPAN, the root namespace 'Include' already exists, so Include::DontRun would be a viable name, and seems pretty descriptive to me.
Anyone got any objections? I've handled the __DATA__ and __END__ cases now. charles. On 8 October 2010 09:25, Charles Colbourn <charles.colbo...@googlemail.com> wrote: > When developing code to include > One might think it intolerably rude > To use words ungrammatical > As a method pragmatical > To avoid compilation being screwed > > :-P > > On 8 October 2010 00:13, Paul Johnson <p...@pjcj.net> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 12:36:41PM +0100, Charles Colbourn wrote: >> >>> Test::Include::DontRun >> >> I'll just point out that any name which includes DontRun rather than >> Don't::Run has sold its soul and should probably start with >> Com::ReallyBigCorporation::Enterprise:: >> >> Then I'll duck (low) and I will run. >> >> -- >> Paul Johnson - p...@pjcj.net >> http://www.pjcj.net >> >
