Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2000
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:57:48AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > To be even more honoust, I don't even know how to search bugtron for trouble > that suits my interrest. I'd like a downloadable ASCII/ISO-8895-1 list with a > short list of open bug next to the summary posted of bugtron's state. This > would be esp. usefull for newcommers and people looking for some problem to > dig in. Idealy, the problems could be assigned a rating by the guru's to > indicate complexness. Very easy will probably not show up there, cause those > are solved on the spot ;-) I've been tinkering with the idea of collecting all submitted code that shows a bug into a list similar to t/ so it can be used to see which bugs are still outstanding and which ones are solved. > I'm sure I'll learn more about the bugtron on your advanced p5p masterclass in > london ... > > > What next? > > Motivate more and more people (Jarkko is doing very well here) to solve > outstanding issues. Abigail sometimes also posts some summarizing questions. > If I find time, I'd like to look into the @+, @_ readonly stuff, for which > I've seen no patches comming by so far. Maybe this problem could be viewed in > a wider sense by adding readony to $^O and other `informative' globals too, as > you mentioned in another bug report. But I've to re-read that discussion. > Abigail says it's usefull. I don't see that (yet). The case I was thinking off is where you have a Perl program on platform1 producing something (a document, or maybe a piece of (non-Perl) code) intended for platform2, where platform2 might not be known untill runtime. If you set $^O, and then use File::Spec to generate the filenames for you, you get the right syntax. Granted, most people will never have the need for it, but it means that making $^O read-only, there's a small loss. I don't see the gain (at the language level) of $^O being read-only. AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next