Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de>
Date: 08.07.2011 11:38

Sorry for the late response - I've been on a wedding this weekend.
> Something is strange here. Did you run perltidy with the exact
> parameters documented in the README file?
Yes - I usually even copy paste it from the README as "perltidy -b -bl
-nsfs -naws -l=100 -ole=unix *.pl *.pm" (pasted once more) is hard to
remember and takes a while to type.
> If so, perltidy seems to be
> version- or platform- dependent. I ran it, and got a slightly
> different patch. It's not big differences, but the simple fact that
> perltidy doesn't always generate the same result is annoying.
>
> Can you run it again, and make sure you get the exact same diff? So
> that it wasn't accidentally run off the wrong version or something?

I just rechecked that applying my two patches vs. applying my two
patches + running the above perltidy command gives no difference (0 byte
patch).

> I've attached the differences between your perltidy and my perltidy run.
>
> I'm using (perltidy -v): "This is perltidy, v20090616"

I'm currently using (perl -v): "This is perl 5, version 14, subversion 1
(v5.14.1) built for MSWin32-x64-multi-thread"
and
(perltidy -v): "This is perltidy, v20101217"

But I've just recently upgraded to the latest Perl version.
The patch has been produced using some 5.12.? ActivePerl and it's
corresponding perltidy version which (whatever it was) obviously
produced the same result for me.

http://perltidy.sourceforge.net/ChangeLog.html#2010_12_17 doesn't seem
to have any Information which would explain our different patches.

Strange...

Regards,

Brar