Mailing List Archive

'use warnings' with exceptions, revisited
Back in January we briefly discussed this, and the resulting PR is here:
https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/17500

I've dealt with all the feedback. Is there anything else I need to do to
help get this merged?

--
David Cantrell
Re: 'use warnings' with exceptions, revisited [ In reply to ]
On 10/4/20 2:02 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
> Back in January we briefly discussed this, and the resulting PR is here:
> https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/17500
>
> I've dealt with all the feedback. Is there anything else I need to do to
> help get this merged?
>

Right now github says that it needs to be rebased again. Do that, and
I will promptly look into merging it.
Re: 'use warnings' with exceptions, revisited [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 03:05:14PM -0600, Karl Williamson wrote:
> On 10/4/20 2:02 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
> >Back in January we briefly discussed this, and the resulting PR is here:
> > https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/17500
> >
> >I've dealt with all the feedback. Is there anything else I need to do to
> >help get this merged?
> Right now github says that it needs to be rebased again. Do that, and
> I will promptly look into merging it.

Done, and I've also, as suggested by Ilmari, got rid of the implicit
'all' if you only give a list of negative warnings.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla.
Re: 'use warnings' with exceptions, revisited [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:02:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> Back in January we briefly discussed this, and the resulting PR is here:
> https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/17500
>
> I've dealt with all the feedback. Is there anything else I need to do to
> help get this merged?

There was more useful feedback, which I've dealt with. Anything else
anyone can think of that needs tweaking?

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age
Re: 'use warnings' with exceptions, revisited [ In reply to ]
> On Nov 6, 2020, at 8:46 AM, David Cantrell <david@cantrell.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:02:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
>> Back in January we briefly discussed this, and the resulting PR is here:
>> https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/17500
>>
>> I've dealt with all the feedback. Is there anything else I need to do to
>> help get this merged?
>
> There was more useful feedback, which I've dealt with. Anything else
> anyone can think of that needs tweaking?

This isn’t related to the PR, but I’d encourage avoidance of the word “exception” when describing this feature in order to prevent confusion with die().

The PR seems to avoid it, but I wanted to throw this up just in case.

-FG
Re: 'use warnings' with exceptions, revisited [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:02:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> Back in January we briefly discussed this, and the resulting PR is here:
> https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/17500
>
> I've dealt with all the feedback. Is there anything else I need to do to
> help get this merged?

I've dealt with all the feedback (again) except for some minor
nit-picking about grammar which I don't agree with, and the only test
failure is some mingw thing that I'm pretty sure ain't my fault.

Is there anything more I need to do?

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing
Re: 'use warnings' with exceptions, revisited [ In reply to ]
> On Nov 17, 2020, at 6:10 AM, David Cantrell <david@cantrell.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:02:42PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
>> Back in January we briefly discussed this, and the resulting PR is here:
>> https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/17500
>>
>> I've dealt with all the feedback. Is there anything else I need to do to
>> help get this merged?
>
> I've dealt with all the feedback (again) except for some minor
> nit-picking about grammar which I don't agree with, and the only test
> failure is some mingw thing that I'm pretty sure ain't my fault.

In light of the parallel discussion here about documentation style, would you at least care to indicate why you think such nits are incorrect?

In particular, this fits the pattern of what most grammarians appear to consider a “comma splice”: an improper join of two independent clauses with a comma:

https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/17500#discussion_r518769591

Background:

https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/comma-splice

-F