On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 02:29:38PM +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> On 7/13/06, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I could change it so that it tries to figure out whether it's being
> >used for real or not and disable the END block code but that's stress
> >and hassle. As a module author, as far
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:14:05PM -0700, Conrad Schneiker wrote:
>
> > From: Google Help [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:31 AM
> [...]
> > Thank you for your note. We've forwarded your request to our
> > newsgroups
> > administrator for review. Please be aware that we
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:34:12AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> On 2006-04-23, at 02:26:54 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> > > The only thing worth mentioning is that with perl 5.003
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> The only thing worth mentioning is that with perl 5.003,
> the following happens:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ perl5.003 Makefile.PL
> Can't locate ExtUtils/Command.pm in @INC at Makefile.PL line 4.
>
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 10:32:12PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 10:20:29AM +0100, Tels wrote:
> >>B when it breaks, end-users cannot fix the problem for themselves, they
> >>need to bug the author and he has to r
I remember working with some module that had tests something like:
use Test::More;
plan tests => numtests();
...
is($foo, $bar, 'foo is bar');
sub numtests { 13 }
So that when you added a new test to the bottom, the number to modify
was right there also. Ring a bell with anyone?
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 10:20:29AM +0100, Tels wrote:
> B when it breaks, end-users cannot fix the problem for themselves, they
> need to bug the author and he has to release a new version. (Good luck
> with that with sparsely maintained modules...)
Last time this happened to me, I just replaced
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:27AM +, Barbie wrote:
> > 12. System is incompatible with the package.
> > Linux::, Win32::, Mac:: modules. Irreconcilable differences.
>
> Not sure how you would cover this, but point 12 seems to possibly fit.
> POSIX.pm is created for the platform it's insta
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 08:16:11AM +0200, Offer Kaye wrote:
> OT question - why is Scalar-List-Utils listed as "CORE"? It is not
> part of the Perl5 core
http://perldoc.perl.org/perl58delta.html#New-Modules-and-Pragmata
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:01:48AM -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
I strongly feel that authors should keep everything necessary
for their distribution public; either in the CPAN distribution
itself, or via a "permanent" publicly available version control
system.
Who's to say you won't lose interes
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 02:56:09AM -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> A new module doesn't need to be added to the core, so long as there
> is a way that we can reliably detect when a person wishes to build and test
> any given perl package for an objectively unselfish purpose such as
> 1:prepac
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 12:04:22PM +0100, Tels wrote:
> Just witness Graph::Dependency, it will fail when their is no META.yml
> available, and what do you want me to do then? Parse Makefile.PLs?
The "correct" WTDI is to execute the Makefile.PL and parse the resulting
Makefile, looking for the PR
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 12:02:41AM +0100, Tels wrote:
> Moin,
>
> On Friday 27 January 2006 23:43, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > Jeffrey Thalhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Randy Kobes distributes Win32 PPMs for some of the
> > > modules that ActiveState doesn't provide. It is not
> > > enti
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:42:58PM +0100, Tels wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 15:26, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > I just uploaded Module::CPANTS::Analyse to CPAN. MCA contains most of
> > the previous Kwalitee indicators and some code to check if one
> > distribution tarball conforms to those i
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:25:44PM -0500, David Golden wrote:
> Jeffrey Thalhammer wrote:
> >* Should a test script have a shebang? What should it
> >be? Any flags on that?
>
> I often see "-t" in a shebang. One downside of the shebang, though, is
> that it's not particularly portable. As chr
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 07:06:08PM +1100, Kirrily Robert wrote:
> Does anyone else find that SKIP: { } blocks bugger up the debugger?
> I'll be happily bouncing on the "n" key to get to round about the
> vicinity of the failing test, and then blam, it sees a skipped test
> and just fast-forw
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 01:42:05PM +0200, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 14:40 -0700, chromatic wrote:
>
> > Does doing it in two steps work? Instead of:
> >
> > > is_deeply ($obj->get ('some_flags'), ['value-one', 'value-two']);
> >
> > perhaps:
> >
> > my @flags = @{ $ob
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 05:58:23PM +0200, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
> use strict;
> use Test::More tests => 2;
> use Test::Exception;
> use Net::Pcap;
>
> throws_ok(
> sub { Net::Pcap::lookupdev() },
> '/^Usage: Net::Pcap::lookupdev\(err\)/',
> "
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:52:34PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I think you're using export_to_level() wrong. $self should really be $class
> for starters. And the way you're using it symlink_ok() always gets
> exported even if the user says "use Test::Symlink ()". You should be passing
> i
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Paul Marquess wrote:
> Whilst I'm here, when I do get around to posting a beta on CPAN, I'd prefer
> it doesn't get used in anger until it has bedded-in. If I give the module a
> version number like 2.000_00, will the CPAN shell ignore it?
This is often do
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:53:45PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Actually about the only thing that seems to be really "hard" is doing
> comparison of blessed regexes with overloaded stringification. For
> that you need XS if you want it to work always.
Now there's a sick idea.
If blessed regexes with
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 12:24:12AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 08:55 +0200, demerphq wrote:
>
> > The entire basis of computer science is based around the idea that if
> > you do the same operation to two items that are the same the end
> > result is the same. Without this ther
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:57:51PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> On 7/1/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > demerphq wrote:
> > > it is important that this is debated outside of just the perl-qa list
> > > (its not that high traffic or visibility IMO) so I have taken the
> > > liberty of s
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
>
> To me 'deeply' implies recursing as deep as the data structure goes, not
> that there's a special rule for the top-level that's treated differently
> from the others.
Nobody is saying is_deeply shouldn't be deep. If I understand
correc
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 05:09:39PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> So, I conclude that is_deeply()'s behavior is ok and something like
> Test::Deep should be enhanced with an option to deal with this
> problem.
So, am I correct in understanding that is_deeply will only notice
value difference
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 10:43:57AM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> * "David A. Golden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-02T05:27:18]
> > Andy Lester wrote:
> > >Why is there a scoreboard? Why do we care about rankings? Why is it
> > >necessary to compare one measure to another? What purpose is being
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:00:17PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> Well, kwalitee != quality. Currently, kwalitee basically only says how
> well-formed a distribution is. For my definition of well-formed :-) But I'm
> always open to suggestion etc.
Since you ask...
An important part of kwalitee t
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:35:34PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Whether things that are required for *testing* belong in
> > build_requires really depends on whether you view testing as an
> > integral part of the build process. This is something that is likely
> > to depend on the *builder
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 03:10:52PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:42:50AM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> > That's another gripe of mine about M::B and create_makefile_pl.
> > It puts the requires AND build_requires in the PREREQ_PM in the
> > Makefile.PL, which I
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:32:26AM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> #!/usr/bin/perl -w
>
> use Getopt::Long;
>
> my %Opts;
> GetOptions(\%Opts, "test");
>
> sub main {
> return if $Opts{test};
>
> ...the program using the
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 01:05:06PM -0400, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 04:43:12PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > > Please consider 0.50 very soon, in which you fix 'err' calls that are an
> > > obvious mistake given defined-or functionality in blead and 5
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:18:34AM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 2003-11-03 21:35:22 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Just wondering, is keys() optimized for void context?
>
> Yes. From doop.c:Perl_do_kv:
>
> OP *
> Perl_do_kv(pTHX)
> { ...
>
>
32 matches
Mail list logo
