Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2014
Hi, I see the failures on the reports now:
../t/io/argv.t .............................................. FAILED 29-32
Could you run the test by hand and send the output?
On 3 October 2014 12:27, Michael Felt <aixtools@gmail.com> wrote:
> this may have nothing to do with this thread, other than it is the only one
> search returned. I see a lot of argv.t test failures on my AIX smokers. fyi.
>
> On Sep 30, 2014 8:34 AM, "Rafael Garcia-Suarez" <rgs@consttype.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 29 July 2014 23:54, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:
>> > * Rafael Garcia-Suarez <rgs@consttype.org> [2014-07-24T11:51:40]
>> >> I believe that this was discussed here some years ago, and that this
>> >> was suggested by TomC. Anyway, I pushed a patch on rgs/nomagicopen.
>> >> The patch is incomplete as it lacks docs and tests. I welcome feedback
>> >> on the intent of the feature.
>> >
>> > I'm still not crazy about the one-off syntax addition, but I think that
>> > it's
>> > the best we're going to see without setting an unrealistic bar for a
>> > new,
>> > generic feature. If we ever *do* get <> adverbs, we can call this sugar
>> > for
>> > one or blah blah blah it doesn't matter that much right now. :-)
>> >
>> > While my heart wants -n to be safe, my conscience tells me that we'll
>> > break
>> > enough (bizarre, to my mind (except maybe regarding "-")) expectations
>> > that it
>> > isn't worth doing. Probably we want -P and -N for safe opening.
>> >
>> > I am gratified to see that <<X>> fails for any X, as you've only made
>> > the
>> > literal construct <<>> iterate. Awesome. I think we're going to want a
>> > better
>> > error message, if possible, though, than:
>> >
>> > ~/code/perl5$ ./perl -e 'while (<<ARGV>>) { print }' 'ls |'
>> > Can't find string terminator "ARGV" anywhere before EOF at -e line 1.
>> >
>> > Something roughly like "safe <<>> operator meaningless on concrete
>> > filehandles"
>> > — that's not right, but you get the idea.
>> >
>> > I don't think I have any further thoughts on it.
>>
>> I have now merged this in blead, with more tests, and docs by Peter
>> Martini
>> and myself. I also added tests for the $ARGV variable, that was not
>> tested.
>>
>> I'm not too sure about the error message; it's not totally trivial to
>> change, since
>> a script like this one, for example, will print "8":
>>
>> print <<FOO>> 1;
>> 16
>> FOO
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next