Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2016
On 05/29/2016 11:53 PM, Dave Mitchell wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:44:35AM -0300, Vincent Pit (VPIT) wrote: >> >> Le 18/04/2016 09:29, Ricardo Signes a écrit : >>> * Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com> [2016-04-18T06:10:56] >>>> I've spent the last week doing more work on Scope::Upper. >>> Thanks for looking into this, Dave. I agree with your remarks on the question >>> of requiredness of this sort of work, but I'm also glad that it may continue to >>> work. Although I don't plan to block on Scope::Upper, it is a useful tool. >>> >>> (Leon T. was also talking about writing a subset of its functionality that was >>> easier to keep working, which is what more of Scope::Upper's downstream >>> dependents use.) >>> >> The dependants seem to use all the features provided by Scope::Upper, so I >> don't really understand what subset would be "easier to keep working". >> Unless all dependents are not treated equal, of course. > > The attached series of 8 patches makes Scope::Upper pass all tests on > 5.24.0, as well as all major perls back to 5.10.1. (I didn't test > on 5.6.x and 5.8.x as these require Test::More to be installed). Dave, thank you so much for working on this! I *really* appreciate it. :) I'll test it out using Kent's tarball against Dancer2. (It uses Return::MultiLevel extensively, which uses Scope::Upper as the underlying implementation, if available.)Thread Previous | Thread Next