Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2011
> From: Zefram > Konovalov, Vadim (Vadim)** CTR ** wrote: > >Have you thought about clobbering proper internal debugger variables > >if someting will happen inside "strict.pm" file? > > Since that would happen before the debugger had installed its hooks, > what would happen is pretty much what would happen to a "use strict" > if the debugger weren't loaded at all. This does mean that > the debugger > can't help in debugging strict.pm, but the same is true for > lots of Perl > core infrastructure, and strict.pm is quite simple. It's a lot less > problematic than being unable to use the debugger to debug > the debugger. Maybe all you're stating here is true, but failed to see any reasoning in initial proposal, so my idea was to think much better before doing this "strict" change. > > > if you're introducing new cosmetic changes (modernizing) > >without really understanding on what is going underneath - there > >are chances to introduce a breackage. > > The kinds of modernisation proposed are not prone to cause accidental > changes in program logic. Again, you can write tests to cover any > behaviour you think is vulnerable. Without specifics you're just > spreading FUD. I am not spreading FUD. But I am not writing the test either. > > >perl5db.pl is an extremely efficient and throughout-thought code, > > Your exaltation of the code does not seem warranted. > > >This is why I am proposing to seek for simplier module to > add "use strict;" to. > > You think we have a compelling urge to add "use strict" to some code > and we're not fussy about which code it is? The RFC was > specifically to > strictify perl5db.pl to make it more maintainable. Adding > "use strict" > somewhere else doesn't help make perl5db.pl more maintainable. I was aware Shlomi wants to add "strict" somewhere but "perl5db" is the last place to play these games - at least this is my feeling. Maybe this feeling is wrong. But this is not FUD either. > > >there should be better reasons on changes, than cosmetics onces, > > Maintainability is a bit more than a cosmetic issue. > > >so, there are two, > > Are they the best you've got? at least this is more than initially was in RFC, and - I am not stating this is my best. Can you spend effort on other Perl cleanups, please? To say, I've proposed a brilliant (joking:) cleanup recently, which was fortunately accepted (thanks) http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/commitdiff/ae5aebe9e8ef2f74e2acd7906088c31604be14a9 All-red patch... my favourite flavour :) Vadim.Thread Previous | Thread Next