-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
220 taint #313
Closed
+17
−23
Closed
220 taint #313
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -265,7 +265,6 @@ if ($Config{nvsize} == 8 && | |
print "# no hexfloat tests\n"; | ||
} | ||
|
||
use strict; | ||
use Config; | ||
|
||
is( | ||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure about this change? what's the reason?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In #220 (comment), @brainbuz wrote:
So he appears to feel that using
strict
as the module to test the-T
switch is no longer the best choice.I'm not sure I agree that we need to make a change here, but if we decide to do so, I'd rather use a module that, say, lives under
lib
orext
rather than one that is dual-life.Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have reviewed the original bug ticket in RT that gave rise to line 2528 above, as well as the commit that introduced that line and the unit test in which that line is found. The point of that line can be illustrated with this program:
... which is extracted from Father C's commit message in the commit cited.
Run this program, first in perl-5.18 and then in perl-5.20 (or any later version, including a
perl
built in ouralpha
branch). The earlier version produced the surprising exception about which the original RT was concerned.If, in the program above, you comment out
use strict;
and substitute any otheruse
statement, you get exactly the same results in perl-5.18 versus later versions. It's theuse
that is important here, not what is being used.I think if we changed this to something other than strict, generations to come would be puzzled as to why we had done so. So I recommend leaving the line as is -- which means that there's nothing left to be altered via this p.r. -- which means the p.r. is closable without merging.
I will do so in 3 days time unless I hear otherwise.
Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan