[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Perl Bug?

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: Perl Bug?
Date: 02 Feb 2001 14:46:55 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Crater Lake)

| Hello, Akim!
| > +    print STDERR "=>> @_\n";
| > +    print STDERR "==>> $_\n";
| I disagree with this style of programming.

Are you serious?  You really can't differentiate from an actual patch
submitted for inclusion, and something I post wishing someone could
explain to me what I missed?

I'm sorry I didn't put any bigger banner.

| What we already have in CVS is unacceptable:
| $ grep STDERR
|     print STDERR "automake: programming error: @_\n";
|                     print STDERR "traces: discovered $source\n";
|                     print STDERR "traces: discovered AC_SUBST($args[0])\n";

I see you removed these.  Let me spell out my opinion: thanks!  You're
really making my life easier on implementing --trace support in
Automake.  Actually you should also have removed the

        warn 'automake: Autoconf traces is an experimental feature';
        warn 'automake: use at your own risks';

|                     print STDERR "Pushing $dependees into $_\n";

This one, agreed.  I'm sorry I missed it.

| #    print STDERR "result_vars: $result_vars\n";
| #    print STDERR "result_rules: $result_rules\n";

Yeah, right, sorry, I apologize.

| I believe that all those lines should be removed with the exception of the
| "programming error".

I don't share your opinion, and I'm quite shocked you removed the code
that helps implementing new undocumented experimental but *wanted* features.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]