On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:16:40 GMT, grinnz@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:09 PM, James E Keenan via RT < > perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > > > > > > As does 're'. But there I get even stranger results. Try this out (in > > the patch): > > > > ##### > > { > > eval "use if (0 > 1), q|re|, qw(is_regexp regexp_pattern);"; > > ok (! re->can('is_regexp'), "Cannot is_regexp"); > > ok (! re->can('regexp_pattern'), "Cannot regexp_pattern"); > > ok ( re->can('is_regexp'), "Can is_regexp"); > > ok ( re->can('regexp_pattern'), "Can regexp_pattern"); > > } > > ##### > > I get: > > ##### > > not ok 11 - Cannot is_regexp > > # Failed test 'Cannot is_regexp' > > # at t/if.t line 73. > > not ok 12 - Cannot regexp_pattern > > # Failed test 'Cannot regexp_pattern' > > # at t/if.t line 74. > > ok 13 - Can is_regexp > > ok 14 - Can regexp_pattern > > ##### > > > > Which I read as, "Whether or not the CONDITION evaluates to true or not, > > the two functions are imported from package 're'." > > > > > This does not look like it's testing imports; it's testing whether the > is_regexp and regexp_pattern functions exist in re::, which is always true. > > -Dan Noted. But please run the attached file. To the best of my understanding of the 'if' documentation, the tests in the third block of the file should pass, i.e., they should catch exceptions and set $@. They are not doing so? What are we missing? Thank you very much. -- James E Keenan (jkeenan@cpan.org) --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132732Thread Previous | Thread Next