Andy Lester schrieb:
At this point, CPANTS rules are getting into the realm of purely
self-pleasuring. If more than a dozen people outside of this small
enclave of people cares whether a module gets a 16 or 17, I'll be shocked.
Personally, I don't. But other people seem to.
2) If you find th
Randy W. Sims schrieb:
Steffen Mueller wrote:
Feedback is welcome, though I'd rather not talk about the way I
determine the version number. It works for all known versions of
Module::Install.
I don't think I like it. It makes me nervous for some reason... For
example, who
Jonathan Rockway schrieb:
1) Module authors need to re-release their modules whenever
Module::Install is updated.
This is the only viable solution. Anybody using Module::Install for
their modules should be aware of that. Of course, if the changes between
the Module::Install releases don't mat
Hi,
Thomas Klausner schrieb:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:27:30PM +0200, Steffen Mueller wrote:
we had a discussion about distributions with broken versions of
Module::Install. Using Module::CPANTS::Kwalitee::* as models I wrote a
simple plugin that calculates a Kwalitee metric
Hi domm, hi perl.qa,
we had a discussion about distributions with broken versions of
Module::Install. Using Module::CPANTS::Kwalitee::* as models I wrote a
simple plugin that calculates a Kwalitee metric "uses_broken_installer".
- If the distribution doesn't use Module::Install, it's fine for
Steffen Mueller schrieb:
You
can find a complete (and somewhat current) list of problematic modules
at http://steffen-mueller.net/mi_old.html
I have just completed rerunning the script that generated that list. The
new list is available at above URL.
Steffen
Jan Dubois schrieb:
Module::Install version 0.60 and earlier pushes one of its own
directories to the front of @INC, and that directory contains Base.pm or
BASE.pm, shadowing the core base.pm on case insensitive filesystems
(Windows, OS X).
Thank you for the explanation. I wasn't aware of this.
Michael G Schwern schrieb:
On 7/6/06, Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Versions of Module::Install < 0.61 do not work on the current ActivePerl
release 5.8.8 build 817.
What's broken and why suddenly 5.8.8?
ActiveState introduced some new form of local configuration
David Golden schrieb:
What about adding NO_BROKEN_INSTALLER as a Kwalitee point for CPANTS?
Maybe tongue-in-cheek, but it's actually a good idea. Module::Install
pre-0.61 is certainly "broken".
What does Module::Build count as? ;)
Steffen
Hi perl.qa,
hopefully, this message will not provoke another flame war about
Module::Install and Module::Build. Please don't feel tempted. I don't
care which build system you use if it works.
Versions of Module::Install < 0.61 do not work on the current ActivePerl
release 5.8.8 build 817. Th
Adam Kennedy wrote:
HOWEVER, that requires that they NOT be using a custom extension, and
than the commands used in the Makefile.PL match those in the current
version of Module::Install.
This has caused a couple of bug reports against PAR distributions with
old/broken MI's where the person in
Matisse Enzer wrote:
#2 has it's benefits too - you could even mirror all of CPAN, and
just maintain a script with "install" commands to install the
versions you
want;
install "KWILLIAMS/Module-Build-0.27_04.tar.gz";
etc. That makes both upgrading easy and makes your build proces
Hi,
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
And now that I think about it, I'm not so convinced about that whole
"concenience for the end user" nonsense. If they're mucking about installing
perl modules from the CPAN packages by themself, they're probably developers
that need some extra time to sit there
Tom Christiansen wrote:
[...]
The price of that consideration would be to give the Mathematicians
blank looks on *their* faces for a very long time instead. Certainly,
they'll be quick to tell you there are just as many whole numbers
as naturals. So they won't know what you mean by equal up there
Luke Palmer wrote:
Luke Palmer:
# The first thing I noticed was the == / eq distinction. This
# has been invaluable for scripting, but since Perl 6 is
# desiring to be more of a formal language, I'm wondering
# whether the distinction is profitable.
[...]
Brent Dax:
Your desired "standard sort
Larry Wall wrote:
[...]
[I wrote:]
: maybe it's because I don't think a
: function's arity is quite the same as it's *minimum* number of
: parameters? I mean, it makes sense in a functional language... but you
: don't have functions with a variable number of arguments there.
Sure, but one can
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that
depend on it...
That was more or less my line of thought.
Now, I think I'll dare claim my English is not exactly bad for a 21
year-o
Nicholas Clark wrote:
[...]
> And what happens if I write
>
> %hash4 = ("Something", "mixing", pairs => and, "scalars");
1 23 4 5
Perl5 says "Odd number of elements in hash assignment at -e line 1."
And Perl6 should, too.
IMHO, your example isn't
Nicholas Clark wrote:
[...]
> If the compiler were able to see that my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
> is one statement that both types $bday as Date, and then assigns a
> constant to it, is it possible to do the conversion of that constant
> to a constant $bday object at compile time? (and hence
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:00:55AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
>> And I'm definitely going to try any future PerlGolf challenges also
>> in perl6.
>
> Is it considered better if perl6 use more characters than perl5? (ie
> implying probably less line noise)
> or less (getting
Piers Cawley wrote:
> Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
{...]
>> couldn't that be reduced to:
>>
>> m{^\s* $stuff := [ "(.*?)" | (\S+) ] };
>>
>> the | will only return one of the grabbed chunks and the result of
>> the [] group would be assigned to $stuff.
>
> Hmm... is this the first P
21 matches
Mail list logo
