Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2003
Hi, hv@crypt.org wrote: > I'd appreciate some documentation and tests for the new facilities. Two new test scripts will follow soon but about the documentation I think that it would be far better if somebody with a better English prose than me could volunteer for the job. > Is there any particular reason to have the code of > assertions::activate in a separate package from assertions? To be able to have two different 'import' methods as both packages are 'use' based. > :Other issue is what happens to lexicals declared inside assertion args. > [...] > :Alternative behavior would be to open a new scope for the assertion > :args, this could be easily done expanding assertion calls to > : > : asserting and assertion(@args) > > I think this would be the simplest way to guarantee that perl won't > try to look up a different variable depending whether assertions are > enabled or not. With the current implementation it doesn't happen either, declarations are not ignored. i.e.: no assertions; i_am_an_assertion(my $b=45); is equivalent to no assertions; my $b; I have been trying to implement the other proposed behavior (creating a new scope for assertion args) but it is not as easy as I thought because sub calls are resolved as assertions too late and lexicals happen to be already allocated. Maybe somebody with a better knowledge of the perl parser than me should look at this part, but I really doubt that adding a new scope could be done without important changes to the parser. Bye, - Salva