develooper Front page | perl.perl6.language.strict | Postings from February 2001

Re: [PATCH perl.c] Fixing PERL5OPT (was Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN)

Thread Next
From:
Jarkko Hietaniemi
Date:
February 18, 2001 14:17
Subject:
Re: [PATCH perl.c] Fixing PERL5OPT (was Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN)
Message ID:
20010218111327.M14259@chaos.wustl.edu
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 01:11:35AM -0500, schwern@pobox.com wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:45:46AM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > > Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
> > 
> > ...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked on it and we put together something
> > which was OK.
> 
> Both Simon's and Peter's patches...
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-11/msg01131.html
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2001-02/msg00913.html
> 
> Fail mjd's (revised) test suite.
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-11/msg01256.html
> 
> Fortunately, its the test suite that's wrong! :)  Doncha love a happy
> ending?
> 
> Here's the code patch against bleedperl along with a revised version
> of mjd's suite.  The revision of the test isn't quite complete.  What
> should really be done to prevent future mis-failures is compare
> PERL5OPT switches vs those on the command line.  Something like:
> 
>   PERL5OPT='-Mstrict -w' ./perl -e 'print $::x'
>   ./perl -Mstrict -w -e 'print $::x'
> 
> The proper way to write the test is to make sure both do the same thing.
> But this is good enough for now.
> 
> 
> --- t/run/runenv.t	2001/02/18 05:58:06	1.1
> +++ t/run/runenv.t	2001/02/18 06:09:10

Applied, thanks.

-- 
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
        # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
        # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen

Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About