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
"perl single step doesn't write steps to stderr" #12971
Comments
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgCreated by perl-diddler@tlinx.orgAccording to our records, your request regarding If you have any further questions or concerns, please respond to this message. For other topics, please create a new ticket. <URL: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl5/Ticket/Display.html?id=118001 > Except that it wasn't resolved. It was closed without allowing There is no reason why perl should do that to a user's terminal. If it As this topic is about why perl's default behavior doesn't comply with other So the other issue may be closed in that there is a workaround documented no Please note -- I am following the instructions above to submit a new ticket just as asked. Also note that they directions above are wrong-- I can't respond to that message as my email never gets recorded . Perl Info
|
From @doughera88On Wed, 15 May 2013, Linda Walsh wrote:
Now that you know how to fix those directions, would you be willing -- |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgOn Wed May 15 05:33:27 2013, doughera wrote:
Does that include a patch to have it redirect to stderr if the user is |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgOn Wed May 15 08:07:36 2013, LAWalsh wrote:
I.e. making it a useful example can involve fixing it in perl as well. |
From @demerphqOn 15 May 2013 17:10, Linda Walsh via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:
Patches are accepted based on their merits alone. We dont So basically you need to write one, and then we can talk. Yves -- |
From @doughera88On Wed, 15 May 2013, Linda Walsh via RT wrote:
It doesn't have to. I was referring specifically to the directions in -- |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgOn Wed May 15 08:26:23 2013, demerphq wrote:
Pre-authorizing a patch is 1 thing, agreeing it's a problem that needs |
From @ikegamiOn Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Linda Walsh via RT <
It works better if you deal in *solutions*. Start by specifying what the |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgOn Wed May 15 19:39:40 2013, ikegami@adaelis.com wrote:
The patch would redirect output to stderr if runnonstop is set. Note -- this fixed a unreported bug in the code -- as above, runnonstop Yet less than a page below that, "/dev/tty" is used for default output. Checking if runonstop is set and setting output /dev/stderr make perl's Anyway, patch for perl5db.pl with an update to its pod is attached. (I actually went in to try to fix the lack of history... but then |
From @doughera88On Sun, 26 May 2013, Linda Walsh via RT wrote:
Unfortunately, this patch uses /proc/self/stderr, which appears to be a -- |
From @LeontOn Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Andy Dougherty <doughera@lafayette.edu> wrote:
How about this? (I have no opinion on this, and haven't tested this patch either, just Leon |
From @Leont |
From @TuxOn Tue, 28 May 2013 13:09:30 -0400 (EDT), Andy Dougherty
None of my HP-UX's (10.20 … 11.31) have /proc at all -- |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgIndeed. I think a better one is attached using ">&* STDERR". It also I didn't have a test setup, but it seems it would work for the normal It might work under other OS's as well as a more general solution for Note Cygwin doesn't evidence the behavior of not having its output |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgNOTE: FWIW, this patch was against released 5.18.0, not against 5.16.x |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgOn Tue May 28 10:52:19 2013, LeonT wrote:
Sorry, missed your attachment until I saw a 3rd patch listed after my Is there a reason why not to use STDERR in all cases? I.e. it seems |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#118003 (status was 'open')
Searchable as RT118003$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: