Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 03:25, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/06/2011 08:26 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
>>
>> -------- Original Message  --------
>> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches
>> From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
>> To: Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de>
>> Date: 06.07.2011 22:58
>>
>>>> I'll remove my versions from the patch (v9 probably) if those files get
>>>> commited.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just doing some final testing and preparing to commit the new pgflex
>>> and pgbison.
>>
>>
>> The attached patch includes documentation changes and excludes my versions
>> of pgbison.pl and pgflex.pl which have been replaced by Andrews' versions
>> that are already commited.
>>
>> As before "perltidy_before.patch" has to be applied first and
>> "VS2010v9.patch" second.
>>
>>
>
> I just started looking at this a bit. One small question: why are we using
> "use base qw(foo);" instead of "use parent qw(foo);" which I understand is
> preferred these days?

I am no perl expert, but I see we are using this already today - in
code written by you in one case ;) I'd assume it was just following
the same standard... If the other way is the way to do it today, I see
no reason not to change it to use that.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/