Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2017
On 12/17/2017 09:17 PM, Father Chrysostomos via RT wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 03:06:01 -0800, xsawyerx@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On 12/13/2017 12:04 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com >>> <mailto:fawaka@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org >>> <mailto:zefram@fysh.org>> wrote: >>> >>> However, as far as I can see there's no need at all for the >>> module to >>> delay execution of the code it generates by putting it in an >>> INIT block. >>> If that code is instead executed immediately, by deleting the >>> word "INIT" >>> to turn it into a bare block, everything works. With that >>> alteration >>> to the module, the Module-Install distro passes its test suite. >>> >>> >>> Given Module::Install's rather unfortunate bundling nature, that >>> would require rereleasing all 119 distributions using it to be >>> rereleased with such a new Module::Install. >>> >>> >>> Well, all 119 modules using Module::Install::DSL, Module::Install in >>> general has quite a few more users. >> That is indeed a pain. > I seem to remember an old blog or list post by Michael Schwern predicting this very problem with Module::Install. > >> What is the cost of reverting this commit instead? > Buggy, unpredictable behaviour, unless you can memorise the list of complex rules for when exit does and does not prevent other blocks from running. Are you referring to long-term or immediate effect? I'm wondering about temporary revert.Thread Previous