FAQ

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 [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).


--
The Enterprise is captured by a vastly superior alien intelligence which
does not put them on trial.
     -- Things That Never Happen in "Star Trek" #10

Search Discussions

  • Kent Fredric at May 29, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    On 30 May 2016 at 09:53, Dave Mitchell wrote:
    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).

    +++ :)

    I've thrown together your patches and thrown a tar.gz here for anyone
    who wants to do testing:

    http://kentfredric.github.io/cpan-fixes/perl-5.24.0/Scope-Upper/Scope-Upper-0.28_01.tar.gz
  • Sawyer X at May 30, 2016 at 9:35 am

    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 [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.)
  • Leon Timmermans at May 30, 2016 at 11:10 am

    On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Dave Mitchell wrote:

    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).
    Excellent!

    Leon

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupperl5-porters @
categoriesperl
postedMay 29, '16 at 10:01p
activeMay 30, '16 at 11:10a
posts4
users4
websiteperl.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2018 Grokbase